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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful scope context ('across the organization's inboxes') but does not disclose return format, pagination, or aggregation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and scope.

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 one fully documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the relationship to webhook_list or whether results span all inboxes, but no critical invocation information 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 coverage is 100%, and the single orgId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from org_list. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('webhook endpoints') scoped to the organization's inboxes. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling webhook_list tool or clarify whether it aggregates across all inboxes.

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 implied by the organization-level scope: an agent can infer this is for org-wide webhook listing rather than inbox-specific listing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus webhook_list, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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