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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the resource types but does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing resource), pagination behavior (though schema defines page/page_size), or any other behavioral traits. More detail is needed.

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 a clear purpose line and a 'Use when' section. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 6 parameters with 2 required and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose but lacks details on handling edge cases (e.g., no matches, invalid resource_type). With output schema available, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'resource (job/monitor/monitor_group)' and 'Use when' context. 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'webhooks mapped to a specific resource' with explicit examples of resource types (job/monitor/monitor_group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' which likely list all webhooks.

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 'Use when' section provides explicit context: 'You have a job or monitor ID and want to know which webhooks will fire for it.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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