list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds two substantive behavioral facts beyond that: secrets are redacted from results, and a sub-account key sees only endpoints scoped to exactly its own sub-account. The auth/restart requirement is also spelled out. It does not mention ordering, result limits, or pagination for what could be a long list, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 of substantive content up front, then a clearly separated ACCESS block that is front-loaded with the prerequisite. The access paragraph is somewhat verbose boilerplate ("Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again"), but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description covers the remaining risks: auth gating, secret redaction, and scope-based visibility. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 and resource ("List the account's webhook endpoints") and even enumerates the fields returned (name, color-adjacent details, subdomain... specifically name, URL, subdomain... concretely: URL, events, scope, sub-accounts, status), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names a sibling such as get_webhook_endpoint or list_webhook_deliveries, so the list-vs-get distinction is left to inference rather than stated.

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 gives a real precondition for use (a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured) and an explicit exclusion: "start_login does NOT open this tool," which steers the agent away from a plausible wrong path. It stops short of naming alternatives like get_webhook_endpoint for a single endpoint or list_webhook_deliveries for delivery history.

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