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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are cursor-paginated and org-scoped, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering or default page size.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the usage hint second. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies scope, pagination model, and a usage cue, leaving only minor gaps like ordering or default limit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both limit and cursor are documented in the schema), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's mention of cursor pagination adds marginal context but no syntax beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 webhook subscriptions) with the scope ('for the calling org') and the pagination model. It implicitly distinguishes itself from webhook_get (single) and webhook_set, but never names those siblings 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?

'Use to enumerate existing webhooks before set/delete operations' gives a concrete usage context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming webhook_get as the alternative for fetching one webhook.

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