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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned fields and their meaning (eventType values, includeFields empty = all fields) and by noting hooks created outside the API via Zapier/n8n are included — useful context not present in structured fields.

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?

Purpose and read-only scope are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with usable detail. The middle enumeration of return fields is somewhat long, and with an output schema present some of it is redundant, but it is not padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is essentially complete: it explains scope, alternatives, and result field meanings. Minor gaps only, such as no mention of ordering or result limits.

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 a single well-documented 'code' parameter (8-character publication code, returned by list_surveys). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Lists a survey's webhook subscriptions') and immediately defines what a webhook is here ('survey events pushed as JSON POST to an https URL'). It also differentiates from siblings by naming get_webhook_deliveries for the ID and create_webhook/delete_webhook/test_webhook for other operations.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool as read-only ('Only reads the configuration') and names the three sibling tools that perform the write/test actions, telling the agent when to pick each. It also routes the agent onward to get_webhook_deliveries using the returned ID.

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