list_webhooks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: signing secrets are redacted by default, telling the agent what it will and won't see in the result.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the redaction caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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, annotations cover safety, an output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds the one non-obvious trait (default redaction); only pagination/scope limits are unaddressed.

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 the include_secrets parameter and its default are already fully documented in the schema, including the reason ('account credentials'). The description's 'redacted by default' restates that default rather than adding new syntax or semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks') and scopes it to 'this API client's webhooks', which cleanly distinguishes it from the create_webhook/update_webhook/delete_webhook siblings by the enumeration verb.

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?

The description implies usage (enumerate existing webhooks) but never states when to reach for this tool versus get/update/delete_webhook, nor any prerequisites. The redaction default hints at the safe-read use case but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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