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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the limit 'Up to 10 per form' and the exact fields returned. This gives the agent expectations beyond the safety profile, though it doesn't specify error behavior for invalid form IDs.

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 first states the returned content, the second states the limit. No filler words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the returned fields and the 10-item cap. It could mention it returns a list, but that is strongly implied by the tool name and 'The form's webhooks' phrasing.

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%, and the form_id parameter already has a helpful description with an example and source (from list_forms). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, 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?

The description clearly states the resource (the form's webhooks) and enumerates the returned fields (url, enabled, description, events, signing method). It distinguishes this listing tool from sibling webhook create/update/delete tools by focusing on reading existing webhooks.

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 phrase 'The form's webhooks' gives clear context: use this when you need to inspect webhooks configured on a specific form. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the distinction from create/update/delete webhook tools is self-evident, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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