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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: bounded pages, exact project filtering, the exclusion of full URLs/secrets/ownership fields, and the 20-consecutive-failures disable rule. This materially helps an agent understand side effects and data exposure.

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 carry exactly the needed information: what the tool lists, what fields are included/excluded, the failure threshold, and pagination behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids repetition or filler.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool. It covers purpose, filtering, pagination, field privacy, and behavioral edge cases. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already available, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the cursor as opaque and paginated and mentions exact project id filtering, but these mostly restate the schema descriptions. It does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing a bounded page of webhook delivery health in the signed-in organization. It also sharpens the scope by naming supported fields and exclusions, and it is clearly distinct from sibling list_* tools because it targets webhook subscriptions.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: for webhook health listing in the signed-in organization, optionally filtered by exact project id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow webhook-specific purpose plus pagination guidance makes invocation conditions clear enough.

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