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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals important behavioral details: the signing secret is never returned, and only the scheme and host of the delivery URL are shown because hook paths may embed credentials. It also discloses the auto-disable rule (20 consecutive failures). These add significant context beyond the annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then provides operational context (auto-disable, auth, and security details). There is no fluff or redundancy, making it concise yet information-dense.

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 a rich output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key aspects: what the tool lists, why it's used, auth constraints, security behavior, and pagination implications ('bounded page'). It could have explicitly mentioned how to paginate with cursor, but the schema already describes that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, cursor, projectId) having a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'bounded page' aligns with limit and cursor semantics but doesn't introduce new information.

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 the action ('List a bounded page') and the specific resource ('Wapiworld webhook subscriptions'), with the diagnostic purpose ('so a stopped webhook can be diagnosed'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_instances and list_projects by focusing on webhook subscriptions, making the tool's role 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is for diagnosing stopped webhooks, mentions the auto-disable behavior, and explicitly states the authentication requirement (operator OAuth session, API-key sessions cannot read). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool over siblings.

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