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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: signing secrets are never returned, so the agent should not attempt to recover one via this tool. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, which the output schema covers.

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 with no filler, and the field enumeration is front-loaded before the secret caveat. 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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with full annotation coverage, a complete schema and an output schema covering return values, the description is sufficient. The one non-obvious caveat (secrets unavailable) is stated, though it could have named the add/update siblings to fully route the agent.

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% and there is a single parameter ('form') already documented as 'Form id, slug, or push handle.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource and enumerates the returned fields (id, url, events, authentication mode), making it clearly the read/list counterpart to fillo_add_webhook, fillo_update_webhook and fillo_remove_webhook. It never states the verb 'list' in the body text (only in the title), but the resource is unambiguous and sibling-distinguishable.

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 only implied: it is the tool that reads a form's webhook configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct pointer to fillo_add_webhook/fillo_update_webhook. The note that secrets are 'shown once when a webhook is added' lightly implies the boundary against those siblings but does not state a selection rule.

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