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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that each endpoint's subscribed events are returned, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behaviour, ordering, or auth scope beyond what the schema implies.

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 what is listed. The trailing 'Polar: GET /v1/webhooks/endpoints.' is largely redundant with the tool name and could be dropped, but the overall size is small.

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-required-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives the resource and the return content, which is enough to call it correctly. Only pagination/ordering behaviour is left unspecified.

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 (including the multi-organisation caveat). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline here.

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+resource ('List the configured webhook endpoints') and adds return scope ('and their subscribed events'). It is clear enough to distinguish from list_webhook_deliveries by resource name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts the two siblings.

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 listing intent is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer polar_list_webhook_deliveries or polar_redeliver_webhook_event, and no prerequisites noted.

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