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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful context by mentioning that it returns supported event types, and the 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/webhooks' line suggests a standard read-only API response. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that leads with the core function ('List the configured outbound webhook(s)'), includes the scope and a key detail (event types), and ends with a helpful API reference. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 required params, 1 optional param with full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety), the description is complete. An agent can understand what the tool returns and the business scope, and the annotation and schema cover the rest.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single business_id parameter is already fully documented, including the nuance that it is optional when the token accesses one business. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists configured outbound webhooks for a business, includes supported event types, and explicitly mirrors GET /api/v1/webhooks. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like set_webhook and delete_webhook, giving a specific verb and resource.

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 the tool is for reading webhook configurations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_webhook or delete_webhook. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the 'List' and read-only hints.

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