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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: secrets are excluded from the output ('secrets exclus'), which matters because the sibling rotate_form_webhook_secret implies secret material exists. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether disabled webhooks are included.

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 compact clause with the returned fields front-loaded and the exclusion stated last; nothing is padded. It is arguably over-compressed — three noun phrases with semicolons — and written in French inside an otherwise English toolset, which costs a little immediate legibility.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this covers what is returned (mapping and state) and what is withheld (secrets), which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is positioning against describe_form_webhooks and whether the listing is scoped to one form or all forms in the workspace.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 identifies the resource precisely: webhook entry points for external forms, plus the fields surfaced (mapping and state). Combined with the name list_form_webhooks, an agent can tell this returns a collection rather than a single webhook. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling describe_form_webhooks, which reads similarly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (describe_form_webhooks, create_form_webhook, update_form_webhook, rotate_form_webhook_secret). The agent must infer that this is the enumeration step before a per-webhook describe or update.

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