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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states it lists addresses and requires an API key. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or error handling. Minimal disclosure for a tool that could have rate limits or authorization constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides the essential information. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the return format (list of EVM addresses) or mentioning potential errors (e.g., invalid webhook ID).

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 sole parameter, `webhookId`, is well-described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the specific resource ('every EVM address monitored by a given webhook'), and the scope (per webhook). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_webhook` and `add_addresses`.

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 mentions the required API key, setting a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vs. get webhook details). Given the large set of sibling tools, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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