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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' and phrase 'see which jobs/monitors' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect safety, pagination behavior, or the exact shape of the returned mapping. It is adequate for a simple read tool but adds little beyond the tool name and schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'Use when' block is immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are already well documented, the description covers the essential decision-making context. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly mentioning monitor_group (since the resource_type filter supports it) or by routing the inverse operation to list_resource_webhooks, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond noting that the webhook is attached to jobs/monitors, which loosely maps to the resource_type filter. It does not clarify formats, defaults, or relationships 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the resources mapped to a webhook.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks (which lists webhooks) and list_resource_webhooks (which would map in the opposite direction). The added detail about jobs/monitors further pins down the resource scope.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' condition: wanting to see which jobs/monitors a webhook is attached to. This clearly frames the appropriate context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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