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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists webhooks (a read operation) and requires an API key, but does not disclose error handling, pagination behavior, or what happens if the project does not exist.

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: first states the purpose, second states a requirement. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it does not describe what the response contains (e.g., list of webhook objects) or any constraints like rate limits, which would help the agent interpret results.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (projectId: 'Project ID whose webhooks should be listed.'). The description adds minimal extra context ('for a given project'), so it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'List every Fusebox Notification webhook configured for a given project.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks') and distinguishes from sibling tools like fuse_notification_create_webhook and fuse_notification_get_webhook by specifying 'list' and 'for a given project'.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires FUSEBOX_SECRET_API_KEY') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., fuse_notification_list_addresses) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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