list_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters, no rate limits, no permission requirements. 'For this account' hints at scoping, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler and the resource stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could have used its brevity budget to add one useful routing or pagination note.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note on pagination workflow or what a webhook endpoint entry contains, but nothing critical blocks a correct call.

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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List webhook endpoints') and scopes it to 'this account', which distinguishes it from resource-level siblings like get_email or list_domains. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from other list_* tools, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent gets no help deciding between list_webhooks and create_webhook or send_test_webhook_event, though the verb 'List' makes the intent reasonably inferable.

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