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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for the extras: it discloses the exact payload fields returned per event, enumerates the status vocabulary (active, quiet, not_observed), and notes 'API calls: 1' for cost awareness. The 'Pass event for one event's field names and a real example' line explains a behavioral drill-down mode not evident from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource scope, then the returned attributes, then the drill-down hint and the actionable recommendation rule. Sentences are dense but each carries information; the trailing 'API calls: 1.' is terse but purposeful as a cost signal.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structure, and annotations cover the read-only profile, so what remains is well covered: available filters, status meanings, plan gating, and the single-event expansion path. The only minor gap is no explicit pointer to the sibling tools for creating or testing webhooks after browsing events.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description's mention of passing 'event' to get fields plus a real example largely restates the schema text. No additional syntax, format, or combined-filter semantics are added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource precisely: 'Every webhook event Cito can send, for every game,' which clearly identifies this as a catalog of webhook event types. The verb 'list' is only implicit, but the scope plus the enumerated per-event attributes make the purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from siblings like list_webhooks (configs) or webhook_deliveries (send history).

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?

The 'Only recommend events whose status is "active"' rule is genuine usage guidance and tells the agent how to act on results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus neighbors such as explain_webhook_setup or list_webhooks, so the when-to-use context is implied rather than stated.

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