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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds non-obvious context: session-vs-API-key auth requirement and the 20-item default page size. It does not mention rate limits or whether results are paginated beyond the limit cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then returns, then constraints — every sentence earns its place. Slightly list-heavy in the middle sentence, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, when not to, auth mode, and default page size.

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%, so both limit and projectId are already documented there; the description only restates the default of 20, matching the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource (list webhook subscriptions) and pairs it with the concrete outcome the caller cares about: delivery health. It enumerates the returned fields (endpoint origin, events, active state, consecutive failures, auto-disabled, last delivery time), so an agent knows exactly what query this answers without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks whether their webhooks are delivering, failing or were disabled') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for changing or re-enabling a webhook'), which routes the agent away from mutation tools. The auth constraint (signed-in session, not API key) is a further use-condition stated plainly.

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