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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the returned fields and explicitly stating that signing secrets are never returned, which is a useful safety-related disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and endpoint, then packs in the key return fields and the signing-secret caveat. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple list operation with rich annotations and only one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, includes the relevant endpoint, and adds a security note; the one parameter is already fully explained in the schema.

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%, so the includeArchived parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to; the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the workspace's outbound event webhooks'), and enumerates what is included in the result. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_webhook, delete_webhook, and update_webhook because it clearly frames this as a read-only listing operation.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when to call it, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives. It does not mention get_webhook for single-webhook retrieval or state when to prefer list_webhooks over the other webhook-related siblings.

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