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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (URLs, subscribed events, active flag) and explicitly states that signing secrets are never returned, which is security-relevant behavior an agent should not assume.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return-shape detail. Every clause earns its place — the em-dash definition of 'webhook' is genuinely clarifying rather than filler.

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 output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it largely does: URLs, events, active status, and the exclusion of signing secrets. Pagination or scoping behavior (e.g. per-workspace) is not addressed, but nothing else material is missing for a zero-argument list tool.

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; no parameter-related gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's outbound webhooks') and then defines what a webhook means in this product: URLs MisarPost posts signed payloads to. That domain framing separates it cleanly from create_webhook, update_webhook and delete_webhook without any ambiguity.

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 implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the read/inspect counterpart to create_webhook and update_webhook, but the description never says when to reach for it or what to do with the alternative tools. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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