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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: secrets are never returned, which tells the agent the output is sanitized. It stops short of noting pagination or result limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence duplicates what the schema already says about campaignId fallback, so it is slightly redundant, but the cost is small.

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 needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the secret-redaction note and targeting rule, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only pagination/result-size behavior is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single campaignId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback. The description's 'Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID' largely restates that schema text rather than adding new meaning, so 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 a specific verb (List) and resource (webhooks) scoped to a GrowSurf program, which cleanly separates it from the create/update/delete/test webhook siblings. The parenthetical about secrets not being returned further sharpens what the tool actually returns.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the sibling set — an agent can infer this is the read path versus growsurf_create_campaign_webhook or growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook — but the description never says when to prefer it or names any alternative. The only explicit conditional is about which campaign is targeted, not about when to call the tool.

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