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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that each endpoint carries its subscribed events; it says nothing about default page size, ordering, or result caps, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The trailing 'Polar: GET /v1/webhooks/endpoints.' is largely redundant with the name and title but costs little.

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 read-only list tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but omits pagination behaviour and any indication of what a returned endpoint record contains.

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%, so page, limit and organization_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline for schema-complete inputs.

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 the configured webhook endpoints') plus the payload detail ('their subscribed events'). It is distinguishable from the closest sibling polar_list_webhook_deliveries by resource, though it never names that sibling or explains the boundary.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the nearby alternatives polar_list_webhook_deliveries or polar_redeliver_webhook_event. An agent must infer the selection logic entirely from the name.

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