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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether inactive/deleted endpoints are included, or auth requirements for the owning app.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is close to minimum viable, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description should at least clarify what a returned endpoint contains and whether results are paginated.

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 0%, so the single required app_id parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. 'Under an app' only loosely hints that app_id is the owning application identifier; no format, source, or validity rules are given.

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 (List) and resource (webhook endpoints) and scopes it to an app, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling pax.webhook_create. It is less clearly differentiated from pax.webhook_deliveries, since it never says whether it returns endpoint configuration versus delivery records.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus pax.webhook_deliveries or pax.webhook_create, and no prerequisites or context (e.g. after registering an endpoint, before debugging deliveries). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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