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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is mapping the call to the concrete REST route GET /api/v1/app/{app_id}/endpoint. It adds no behavior beyond that: no pagination semantics despite the iterator parameter, no note on default ordering or result bounds.

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 with no waste; the purpose and scope come first and the REST mapping follows as a secondary detail. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 fully documented parameters and an explicit readOnlyHint, the description covers what an agent needs in order to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that, with no output schema, nothing is said about the shape of the returned list or how the iterator field is consumed across pages.

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 app_id, limit, order, and iterator are all documented in the schema itself (including the 1-250 bound and the default page size of 50). The description repeats only app_id implicitly and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 endpoints') and scopes it to 'one application', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from svix_get_endpoint (singular) and the application-level list tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it excludes, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'list' plus the app_id requirement signals this is the way to enumerate endpoints for an app, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer svix_get_endpoint, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., valid app id). Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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