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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the read-only nature. The description adds a key behavioral disclosure: 'secret material never included,' which clarifies that even though endpoints are listed, secrets are omitted. This is valuable beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded: states the action ('List the caller's webhook endpoints') and then the critical caveat. No wasted words; every part 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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters) and the readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core function and the critical secret exclusion. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for a simple list operation with no output schema, that's acceptable. A 4 seems appropriate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description needn't explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides all necessary semantic context (the caller's endpoints, no secrets).

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 clearly states 'List the caller's webhook endpoints' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'secret material never included,' which distinguishes it from other webhook operations. It's distinct from webhookEndpoints_get (which presumably gets a single endpoint) and from create/delete/update, etc.

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 implies use for listing all of the caller's endpoints, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of webhookEndpoints_get or other alternatives. The name and lack of parameters make it clear it's a list-all operation, but there's no explicit guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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