beel_list_webhook_subscriptions

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: both active and inactive subscriptions are returned, subscription authorship does not affect visibility, and signing secrets are never included. This gives an agent accurate expectations about data scope and sensitive-field exclusion without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences plus the endpoint line convey scope, visibility semantics, secret exclusion, and the exact HTTP verb/path. No word is wasted, and the most important fact — what is returned — comes first.

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 operation with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present: the account scoping rule, the active/inactive inclusion, the visibility model, the secret-exclusion caveat, and the endpoint. Pagination is already covered in the schema descriptions.

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%, and the input schema already provides thorough documentation, especially for account_id: it clarifies ownership, delegation, and the 403 behavior. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path reference, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns webhook subscriptions for the account identified in the path, including both active and inactive. The plural 'subscriptions' and the GET endpoint clearly distinguish it from single-subscription tools such as beel_get_webhook_subscription, and the scoping to accounts distinguishes it from webhook deliveries.

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 the intended use by defining exactly what the tool returns and the account scoping rule, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like beel_get_webhook_subscription or beel_list_webhook_deliveries. The account visibility and secret-exclusion notes provide useful context, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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