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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true with no contradiction, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: output is redacted to host only because the full URL often carries a credential, and the caller must be an owner or admin. That redaction and permission gating are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before summarizing results to a user.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: trigger, scope of destinations, returned shape plus the redaction rationale, then the exclusion. The trigger and the return description are front-loaded before the edge cases, so an agent skimming the first line already knows whether to call.

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 parameters, no output schema and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains what is listed, what each record contains, why one field is truncated, who may call it, and where to go for the adjacent need. Nothing required to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description correctly spends no words on argument semantics. Its enumeration of return fields (host, events, sites, active/paused, delivery health) is a bonus rather than a substitute for parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb+resource ('list webhooks') and enumerates the destination types covered (webhooks, Slack, Discord, Google Chat, Teams), plus what is returned for each. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_my_notifications, which it explicitly names as the wrong tool for email alerts.

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?

'Use this when the user asks where FlareWarden sends alerts besides email' gives an explicit trigger, and 'Not for the user's own alert emails: use get_my_notifications' gives an explicit exclusion with the alternative. It also states the access constraint (owners and admins only), which lets an agent rule the call out in advance.

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