aircall_list_webhooks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds modest value: 'all configured webhooks' signals full enumeration (no filtering), and the webhook explanation provides domain context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by supplying domain context about webhooks (real-time notifications for calls, contacts, user status), which aids tool selection. It is slightly less tool-behavior-focused than an ideal 5, but it is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 two well-documented optional pagination params and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema means the description could have gone further to state what the returned list contains (e.g., webhook URLs/events), which is a minor gap. Overall, the combination of clear purpose, full schema coverage, and safe-operation annotations makes this mostly complete.

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% — both page and per_page are fully documented with defaults and a max constraint. The description adds no parameter information, but per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the full semantic weight for both parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List all configured webhooks.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling aircall_get_webhook (singular fetch) and the create/update/delete webhook tools. The second sentence adds functional context about what webhooks do, further disambiguating it from unrelated list tools in the sibling set.

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 from the verb 'List' — an agent can infer to use this when enumerating webhook configurations. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use aircall_get_webhook to retrieve a single webhook'), despite a relevant singular sibling existing. The webhook context sentence provides domain background but not usage selection guidance.

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