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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: the signing key is never returned and URLs are redacted to host only, which tells the agent what it can and cannot expect in the payload.

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 compact sentences plus the underlying endpoint reference; the returned-field summary is front-loaded ahead of the redaction caveats. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to say what fields are returned and how sensitive values are masked, which is the main thing an agent needs. It does not mention pagination behavior in the response, though the schema's next_page hint partly covers that.

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 'page' parameter, including the 'pass next_page' instruction, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about paging semantics or limits.

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 and resource ('List configured webhooks') plus the scoping detail ('with status and subscribed event types'), so the agent immediately knows what comes back. No sibling in the list touches webhooks, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource — call it when you need to inspect configured webhooks — but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or named alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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