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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it discloses data redaction ("never returns the secret or header values") and the pagination envelope. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the read-only/redaction guarantee, then the creation alternative and return shape. No 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return envelope ({ items, nextCursor, hasMore, canPaginate }), the redaction guarantee, and the one-per-form cardinality. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter formId is undocumented in the schema; the description only implicitly covers it via "of a form". Since formId is self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, this is adequate but adds little meaning 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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (webhook integrations of a form) and even enumerates the returned fields (url, hasSigningSecret, headerNames, status, delivery counts). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools formWebhook_create/update/delete/test.

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?

"A form has at most one; create it with formWebhook_create" gives the cardinality constraint and names the sibling responsible for creation, which prevents an agent from misusing this list tool to create or from expecting multiple results. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., preferring formWebhook_test for verification).

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