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's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing that example payloads contain fictional sample data, and that signing and retry-schedule documentation is bundled in. That is genuinely useful behavioural context an agent would otherwise not have. It stops short of describing the response shape or ordering, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant caveat (example payloads are fictional, not real data) is included early. It loses a point only for being a fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter reference tool that already carries full annotations, the description covers what content comes back (event list, descriptions, sample payloads, signing, retry schedule). No output schema exists, but the description effectively enumerates the return contents, so nothing critical is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description also correctly implies a no-argument catalogue call.

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 identifies the resource as the full catalogue of webhook event types Aeroz can emit, plus signing and retry documentation, which usefully clarifies this is a static reference rather than a log of past deliveries. However, it is written as a noun-phrase fragment with no verb ('returns'/'lists'), and it does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like list_webhook_deliveries or list_webhook_endpoints.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool or when to prefer list_webhook_deliveries/list_webhook_endpoints instead. The agent must infer usage purely from the content inventory, and the near-identical sibling names make that inference risky.

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