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 does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, the return format is described in detail. However, it lacks information about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be valuable for a list operation with no annotation safety hints.

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 well-organized with clear sections: summary, when-to-use, returns, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is a simple tool. The description compensates by detailing the return object fields (webhook_id, url, events, enabled, created_at, last_delivery) and providing a concrete example. It is fully complete for the scope of this tool.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the example call list_webhooks({}) confirms the empty input.

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 opening sentence 'List all webhook subscriptions for the partner account' clearly states the verb (List), resource (webhook subscriptions), and scope (partner account). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and update_webhook, which perform different actions on the same resource.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section lists three concrete use cases: viewing all configured webhooks, auditing subscriptions, and finding a webhook to update or delete. This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the suggested workflow implies you would use update/delete tools after finding the webhook.

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