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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not obligated to argue safety, yet it adds real value: newest-first ordering and the important disclosure that the signing secret is never returned here (only at create time). It also previews the visible fields (url, events, active flag, recent-failure state). It stops short of describing paging behavior beyond `limit`.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then the read-only/safety caveat, then the return-surface preview. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned and the deliberate omission of the signing secret. The pre-emptive hint that a secret exists elsewhere prevents a wasted follow-up call. Only the pagination/truncation semantics of `limit` are left unaddressed.

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 50%: `space` is richly documented in the schema itself, while `limit` is undocumented anywhere. The description reinforces the workspace default but adds no semantics for `limit` or for the personal-space enum beyond what the schema already states, so the schema carries most of the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list outbound webhooks), scopes it to the caller's workspace, and adds an ordering guarantee (newest first). Webhooks are unmistakably distinct from every sibling *_list tool, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and scope but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named for adjacent needs. The only routing signal lives in the `space` parameter, not in the description prose.

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