List Webhook Subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to the current tenant with no filtering options — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether sensitive fields like signing secrets appear in the response.

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, front-loaded, with no hedging or filler. However, the first sentence contributes zero information beyond the title, so roughly half the text is redundant rather than earning 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should at least signal whether the result set is bounded (paginated/limited) and roughly what a subscription record contains. It omits both, leaving an agent unable to predict response shape or size for a potentially unbounded tenant-level list.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The tenant-scoping sentence does confirm that no filter argument exists, which is a small but real clarification for an agent expecting pagination or filter options.

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 first sentence ('List Webhook Subscriptions.') is a verbatim restatement of the title, so the only added signal is the second sentence's tenant scoping ('for the current tenant'). The verb+resource pair is unambiguous, but nothing distinguishes this from get_webhook_subscription, delete_webhook_subscription, or the create/update siblings beyond the word 'List'.

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 the obvious alternatives (get_webhook_subscription for a single record, delete_webhook_subscription for removal), and no stated prerequisites such as permissions or tenant context requirements. An agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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