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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Without their signing secrets' is a useful behavioral guarantee, and the organization scoping is explicit. But it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or whether disabled endpoints are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, scope, and an important security-related exclusion with zero filler. Every word contributes.

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?

For a one-parameter list operation, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly: organization_id is the only required input and the purpose is unambiguous. Minor gaps around response format and pagination remain, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical.

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?

The input schema already documents organization_id with 100% coverage, including the hint 'Active organization ID.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

Description names a specific action ('List') and resource ('webhook endpoints of the organization'), and adds a meaningful qualifier: 'without their signing secrets.' This clearly distinguishes it from singular webhook_get and management siblings like webhook_create and webhook_disable.

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 intended use case is clear: retrieve all webhook endpoints for an organization. The exclusion of signing secrets sets expectations, and the plural phrasing implies this is the collection counterpart to webhook_get. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool.

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