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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real substance: header values, secrets, and code source are omitted, telling the agent that returned summaries are redacted and that it cannot retrieve credentials through this tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its subtypes, followed by the redaction caveat and the safety flag. No filler and nothing redundant with the annotations except the final 'Read-only' phrase.

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?

Complete enough for a parameterless list tool with no output schema: the agent knows what is returned (summaries), what is withheld (secrets, headers, code), and that it is safe. Minor gaps remain around result ordering or whether all functions are returned in one response.

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 and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 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 (List) and resource (Agent Functions), and enumerates the three concrete subtypes it covers: HTTP webhooks, connected MCP tools, and Code functions. It does not explicitly name the related get/create/update siblings, but the read/list scope is unambiguous.

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?

Listing is implied as the discovery step before agent_functions_get_code or the create/update siblings, but the description never says when to use this versus those alternatives. Usage is inferable from the verb and sibling naming rather than stated.

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