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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious output guarantee ('secret is never returned') and a required auth scheme ('Requires Bearer'), both useful to an agent. It does not describe pagination or explicit read-only semantics, but 'List' plus the secret guarantee provide adequate transparency for this simple read operation.

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?

Three short clauses deliver the core action, a critical output guarantee, scope, and auth requirement without any filler. The most important verb-object pair is front-loaded.

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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, scope, auth, and a key response trait. It could add response shape or pagination details, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning; the baseline 4 applies. The 'secret is never returned' note is output-related, not a parameter concern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List webhook endpoints', which unambiguously identifies the operation. It also adds scope ('Fleet/Platform') that helps distinguish it from sibling webhook tools like register_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook.

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 makes the use case clear: call this tool to retrieve webhook endpoints, and it indicates the applicable scope ('Fleet/Platform') and an authentication prerequisite ('Requires Bearer'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the contrast with create/update/delete siblings is strongly implied.

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