Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely pre-declared. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context: auth tokens are deliberately excluded from output and only ever shown once by other tools. It omits any listing/return-shape detail beyond the field names, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences: the resource and its fields come first, then the token caveat. The trailing 'Read only.' is a cheap reinforcement of existing annotations but costs almost nothing. No sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields (URL, events, active, expiry, retries) is exactly the information an agent would otherwise lack. It also covers the token-exclusion behavior and read-only nature. The gap is operational: nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume for a list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter (site) at 100% schema description coverage, which includes the valid enum-like value, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format or scoping detail for site beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the concrete resource (the site's outgoing webhooks) and enumerates the fields returned (URL, events, active, expiry, retries), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It distinguishes itself from create_webhook and regenerate_webhook_token by explaining those surface tokens while this does not. It does not, however, contrast with the nearby get_webhook_history, which leaves one sibling ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives actionable routing: if a token is what you need, use create_webhook or regenerate_webhook_token, since tokens are never listed here. That is an explicit when-not for a closely related need. It stops short of stating when to prefer this list over get_webhook_history or test_webhook, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.