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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that returned webhook secrets are masked, and that resolution falls back to an environment-configured program id. It does not cover pagination or result ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the resource and the most surprising output trait (no secrets) front-loaded, followed by the targeting rule. No filler and nothing redundant to the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile; the description fills the remaining gap about secret masking and target resolution. The one loose end is the mismatch between the stated optional-looking fallback and the schema's required campaignId, which could confuse an agent about whether it may omit the argument.

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 schema already explains the id-vs-name distinction and the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID default, so the description's "Targets campaignId ... otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID" largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the 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 and resource ("List ... webhooks") scoped to a GrowSurf program, and the parenthetical "secrets are never returned" immediately frames what the listing contains. An agent can distinguish this from growsurf_create_campaign_webhook, growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook, and growsurf_test_campaign_webhook purely from the verb.

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 description implies when to call it (to enumerate a program's webhooks) and explains the campaign targeting rule, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names the sibling tools it competes with, such as the test or delete webhook tools. It also muddies required-vs-optional by saying "if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID" while the schema lists campaignId as required.

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