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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are scoped to the PUBLISHED site (unpublished tags don't appear) and access is restricted to owners. It doesn't describe ordering or pagination, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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?

It is a single compact passage with no filler, and the core definition is front-loaded. It is somewhat overloaded, packing three claims plus a parenthetical example into one sentence, which taxes readability slightly, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing results and does so: the endpoint URLs, which forms use each, and whether each has a secret. Combined with the owner-only rule and the publish dependency, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `id` parameter ('Site id.'), so the baseline is 3. The description implies the site scope ('the forms on the PUBLISHED site') but does not clarify that `id` is optional or which site is used when omitted — the one bit of added meaning it could have supplied.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('the webhook URLs the forms on the PUBLISHED site post to') and enumerates the returned fields (forms using each, signing-secret status). It distinguishes itself from set_form_webhook_secret by noting it returns the `endpoint` key that setter consumes. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, but no direct list-alternative exists.

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?

It gives a concrete use context: inspect webhooks that go live after publish_site, and obtain the `endpoint` value before calling set_form_webhook_secret — an explicit chaining hint. It adds an eligibility rule ('Owners only'). It does not state when-not to use it, but the tool space is narrow.

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