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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main contribution is the non-obvious caveat that secrets are never displayed again — genuinely useful context for an agent that may otherwise try to retrieve a secret value. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two very short sentences with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded. The first sentence is a sentence fragment, which makes it slightly telegraphic, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter read tool has little behavioral surface to cover. The only real gap is the absence of any guidance relative to the sibling webhook tools.

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, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate. No parameter claims are made and none are needed.

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?

Names the specific resource (registered webhook endpoints and their events), which is enough to distinguish it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and test_webhook by name. The list verb is only implied by the title/fragment rather than stated outright, so it falls short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read counterpart to create_webhook/delete_webhook, but the description never says when to use it or points to an alternative (e.g., test_webhook for verification). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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