List Webhook Subscriptions

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

The description's verb is "List" and the endpoint is disclosed as GET /v1/webhooks, both of which assert a read-only operation, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. That is a direct inconsistency about whether the call mutates state, which is exactly the kind of signal an agent relies on before invoking a tool. The genuinely useful additions (auth scope, credit cost, endpoint) do not offset the conflicting safety profile.

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 core sentence is one line and front-loaded with the action and scope; the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost) is terse and each line carries information an agent cannot get elsewhere. It is slightly template-like rather than purpose-built, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and it does add the auth scope and per-call credit cost. The remaining gap is behavioral: it never says whether results are paginated, capped, or empty-when-no-subscriptions, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 absence of pagination or filtering parameters is at least consistent with a complete "list everything for this user" call.

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 and resource ("List all active webhook subscriptions") scoped to the authenticated user, which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as astroway_webhooks_id, astroway_webhooks_subscribe, or the event-specific webhook tools, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference from those names.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is for inspecting existing subscriptions versus astroway_webhooks_subscribe for creating them, and nothing warns about the 10-credit cost being incurred per call.

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