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

No annotations, yet the description discloses everything material: secrets are never included, disabled reason follows 10 consecutive failures, skipped deliveries for empty balance don't count, and an aanet.system message is emitted on auto-disable. That is rich behavioral context that annotations would normally carry.

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?

Front-loads the action and the returned fields, then follows with the failure/disable semantics and the sibling routing. It is dense but every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical about empty-balance deliveries is slightly buried.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return shape, and it still explains field meaning (consecutive_failures, disabled_reason trigger). Auth requirement, secret exclusion, and sibling routing are all covered for a read-only list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'Owner_key required', which tells the agent that a sub-key will be rejected even though the schema allows either key type — a real semantic addition beyond the schema.

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 (list) and resource (webhooks on a workspace), and enumerates the fields returned: url, subscribed events, consecutive_failures, disabled_at/reason. It is clearly distinct from aanet_get_webhook_deliveries and aanet_register_webhook, which it names.

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?

Says 'use aanet_get_webhook_deliveries for per-attempt delivery history on one of these', which is a clear routing hint. It doesn't spell out when not to use this (e.g., no-all-workspaces case), but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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