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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows webhook endpoints and the last data received, implying a read-only informational return. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, potential side effects, or the exact shape of the output. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose and the 'board' reference adds a useful mental model. Every word earns 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully communicates need-to-know information: what it lists and what each entry includes. It could be more explicit about whether it returns raw payloads vs. summaries, but for an initial call this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('list') and resource ('webhook endpoints'), and adds what it reports ('what last arrived on each'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_streams by explicitly naming webhooks, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need to inspect inbound webhook endpoints), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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