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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it enumerates the return payload (events, last delivery) and discloses a security constraint, 'Secrets are never returned,' which tells the agent there is sanitization and it should not expect secret material.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the payload summary is front-loaded ahead of the secret-handling note. The first sentence is a verbless fragment, which costs a little clarity but nothing in length.

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 zero-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose scope (closed world, read-only) is already declared, this conveys what comes back and the secret policy. It stops short of noting ordering, pagination behavior, or how many endpoints are returned, which would matter for a list operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema for the description to elaborate. The description instead describes output fields, which is useful but not parameter meaning.

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 states the resource (webhook endpoints) and what is included (events and last delivery), which pairs with the 'list' verb in the name to make the operation unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_webhook_deliveries by framing per-endpoint last-delivery info, though it never names that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_webhook_deliveries or get_webhook-style siblings, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The listing intent is only implied by the name and the noun phrase describing the payload.

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