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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations cannot: the response deliberately omits signing secrets, which changes what the agent can do with the result. The approval-configurability sentence is vague but does signal that visibility may vary by org policy.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the key scope fact. The second sentence about administrator-configurable MCP approvals is tangential and its connection to this tool's behavior is unclear, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation isn't needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is any treatment of the four input parameters, particularly what 'id' does on a list endpoint — an agent cannot filter confidently from this definition alone.

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% across four parameters (id, limit, offset, search), and the description says nothing about any of them. The critical ambiguity — whether 'id' filters to a single webhook or is required for some other purpose — is left entirely to guesswork, and pagination/filter semantics are undocumented anywhere.

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 organization webhooks') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without signing secrets') that tells an agent this is the redacted view. It does not name the sibling alternatives (get_organization_webhook, list_organization_webhook_deliveries) it should be distinguished from, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'without signing secrets' implies the selection condition (use this when secrets aren't needed), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no named alternative. The second sentence about MCP approval requirements reads as administrative boilerplate rather than guidance for choosing this tool.

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