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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful disclosures: webhooks can be auto-disabled after repeated failures, secrets are never included and only shown once at registration, and the owner_key is required. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only safety or mentioning response pagination, but for a list operation this is strong transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action and return content are front-loaded, followed by critical caveats and an alternative-tool pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low parameter count, the rich input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, key fields, owner_key requirement, secret-handling behavior, and a pointer to delivery history. No critical context is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents api_key and workspace_id. The description's 'Owner_key required' note reinforces the api_key schema but does not add new parameter-level meaning; workspace_id is already explained as sourced from workspace creation calls.

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?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List webhooks registered on a workspace' and enumerates the returned fields (url, subscribed events, active/disabled status). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from webhook registration/deletion and explicitly points to a sibling for delivery history, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool and routes to an alternative: 'use aanet_get_webhook_deliveries for per-attempt delivery history on one of these.' It also conditions the call on requiring the owner_key, giving the agent a concrete prerequisite.

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