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

The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced by the description's wording ('List', 'Returns details'). It also discloses access restrictions (admins/owners) and the need for organization context, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, no fluff. The description is compact, informative, and well-organized, front-loading the core action.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview of the returned fields and includes permission and context requirements. It is sufficient for a list operation, though a structured output schema would be richer.

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% with each parameter described (skip, take, projectId). The description adds no extra parameter detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Clearly states it lists configured webhooks, optionally filtered by project, and specifies the returned details (URL, events, status). The name alone is unambiguous, and the description adds permission context.

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?

Provides the prerequisite (organization context via set_context) and mentions optional project filtering. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries, but the intent is clear.

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