Webhooks

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: webhook secrets are hidden in the returned address, options expands metadata about services/languages/events/message keys, and webhooks:manage permission is required. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 two dense sentences with no filler, and the core resource description comes first. The first sentence is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like "Lists," which slightly weakens front-loading, but overall it is appropriately sized and 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 read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description explains what each returned webhook contains, what the options flag adds, and the permission needed. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

With one boolean parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents options as adding services, languages, events, and message keys. The description restates this and adds detail about event permissions and message-key replacement, giving useful semantic context beyond the schema baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource as webhooks and enumerates the returned fields (service, events, language, enabled state, redacted address), so the agent knows this is a read/list operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling manage_webhook, leaving sibling selection to the tool name.

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?

It states the permission requirement (webhooks:manage) and explains what the options flag adds, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus manage_webhook or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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