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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main addition is the required read-webhooks auth scope, which annotations do not cover. It does not describe pagination behavior or ordering, so the added behavioral context is useful but thin.

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 sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero wasted words. The scope requirement is appended compactly without burying the main purpose.

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 tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and auth requirement. Only a note on pagination/result ordering would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters (page, limit, created_at_min/max) are fully documented in the schema, including the next_page hint. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 webhook subscriptions of the store') and even names the fields returned (topic, address, status). No sibling tool is webhook-related, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 says the read-webhooks scope is required, which is a real usage precondition, but it gives no guidance on when to call this versus other listing tools or on pagination workflow. Usage is implied by the tool's name rather than spelled out.

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