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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: secrets are NEVER echoed, results are scoped to the calling account, and tenant_id sub-labels are separate namespaces rather than filters. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid misuse or misinterpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the most security-relevant detail (secrets never echoed). It is compact but contains one somewhat extraneous prefix, 'Travel Product B', which adds context but is not essential. Overall, every other sentence 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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key bases: what is returned, what is never returned, scoping rules, tenant_id semantics, and the authentication requirement. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining tenant_id. It does this very well, describing it as an optional sub-label within the caller's own namespace, clarifying that it is not a filter and must match the registration value. This is significantly more informative than the bare 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'list YOUR registered webhook subscriptions'. It further specifies the returned fields (subscription_id, url), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like register_disruption_webhook or delete_disruption_webhook.

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 gives strong usage context: it clarifies that the tool is scoped to the calling account and that tenant_id must match the one used during registration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the listing behavior and tenant_id semantics provide clear guidance for when this tool applies.

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