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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that outgoing webhooks are a plan feature, signaling a potential access constraint. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with annotations covering safety the added value is moderate.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place by defining the resource and noting a key plan constraint.

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 tool with full parameter schema and thorough annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention return structure or any default filtering, but such details are not essential here.

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% for the single optional apiKey parameter, so the schema already provides full meaning. The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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' and resource 'outgoing webhooks', and clarifies what outgoing webhooks are. This distinguishes it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and regenerate_webhook_secret without opening any schema.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_webhook or regenerate_webhook_secret. The note that outgoing webhooks are a plan feature is availability context, not usage guidance.

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