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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('List') and the scoping to a specific resource. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, filtering by is_active, or that it returns webhook details vs just IDs. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the 'Use when' section adds practical guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. It provides the key selection context (which resource types, when to use). It could mention pagination or the is_active filter, but these are already in the schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds the semantic context that resource_id refers to a job/monitor/monitor_group and that the tool answers 'which webhooks will fire for it', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: listing webhooks mapped to a specific resource, and explicitly names the resource types (job/monitor/monitor_group). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_webhooks and list_webhook_resources by focusing on a specific resource's webhook mappings.

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 provides a clear 'Use when' section with a concrete condition: having a job or monitor ID and wanting to know which webhooks will fire for it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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