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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: summaries only, no request headers or body, most-recent-first ordering, and the account/local store distinction. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not describe pagination or default limit behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler. Key facts are front-loaded (list, ordering, fields), followed by the payload-routing instruction and mode behavior, all in a compact and scannable format.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields, the ordering, the summary-only limitation, how to access full payloads, and the two runtime modes. The parameter schema fills in the remaining filter details, making the tool adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about account vs. local mode that clarifies mode-dependent filters, but it does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for schema-driven parameter clarity.

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 webhook events'), specifies ordering ('most recent first') and enumerates the returned summary fields (id, app, type, status, attempt, destination status code, latency, timestamp). It explicitly distinguishes itself from anyhook_inspect by noting that only summaries are returned and payloads require a follow-up call.

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?

Provides clear routing guidance: 'Summaries only... call anyhook_inspect with an id from here to read one event's payload.' It also explains the account vs. local in-memory mode, helping agents understand when filters like source and status apply. It does not explicitly contrast with other sibling list tools such as anyhook_inbox or anyhook_undelivered, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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