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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' and adds the endpoint 'GET /webhooks'. It does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any additional side effects, but this is a simple read operation with annotations covering the main safety concern.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing useful information: the operation, the account scope, optional filtering, read-only nature, and endpoint. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It supplies the endpoint, scoping, filtering option, and safety profile without requiring additional 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 100%, and all three parameters are already clearly described in the schema, including defaults and examples. The description only mentions event-name filtering without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the verb ('List') and the resource ('webhooks configured in the account'), and distinguishes it from sibling list tools by resource type. It also mentions optional event filtering, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—listing account webhooks, optionally filtered by event—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Since all siblings target different resources, the context is sufficient without exclusions.

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