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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the event scope (post lifecycle and inbox events) but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or result shape. This is minimum viable given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a list tool, though the terseness leaves gaps addressed under other dimensions.

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 3-parameter read tool with a nested query object and no output schema, the description omits when to use it, what the optional brand/workspace filters do, and how results are scoped. Annotations cover safety, but the definition remains thin on agent-relevant context.

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 67%: query and workspace_id have descriptions, but brand_id has none. The description contributes no parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented brand_id or clarify the generic query override object.

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 ('webhook subscriptions'), scoped to post lifecycle and inbox events. Clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as aidelly_list_webhook_deliveries.

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 when-to-use guidance, alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The purpose only implies that this is for inspecting configured webhooks; it does not say when this is preferable to listing webhook deliveries or whether filters are required.

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