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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: query strings are stripped from addresses, signing secrets are never returned, and the `webhooks:read` scope is required — all material for an agent deciding whether the output is safe to surface.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the payload field by field, the second states the security guarantee and the auth requirement. The most important content is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must characterize the returned data — and it does precisely (address, events, health), plus redaction behavior and scope. An agent has everything needed to call it and to know what it will get back.

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 imposes nothing to misinterpret; the baseline for no-parameter tools applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, all-endpoints listing with no filtering options.

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 names a specific resource (the company's webhook endpoints) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: address with query string hidden, subscribed events, and health in words. It is clearly a listing read, distinguishable in substance from list_webhook_deliveries and list_webhook_events, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 infers it should call this when it wants to inspect configured endpoints. The one explicit condition is the `webhooks:read` scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than when/when-not guidance. No alternative tool (e.g. list_webhook_deliveries, list_webhook_events) is mentioned.

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