beel_list_webhook_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists both active and inactive subscriptions, clarifies that all account members see the same list (authorship != visibility), and states that signing secrets are never included. These details help an agent understand side effects and response contents without contradicting any annotation.

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 description is two concise sentences plus an endpoint line, with zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds two high-value clarifications (active/inactive, visibility, no secrets). Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 with three params and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned (subscriptions), the scoping (account in path), and critical exclusions (signing secrets). The schema covers pagination details. However, it does not explicitly describe the response shape (e.g., an array of subscription objects), which an agent might need to know, though the absence of an output schema makes this less critical. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including detailed semantics for account_id (scope determination, error codes) and pagination params (defaults, echoing in response). The description only restates the account in the path via the endpoint line, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool returns webhook subscriptions for an account, explicitly including both active and inactive ones. It goes beyond a simple verb+noun by clarifying scoping ('of the account in the path') and visibility semantics ('every member sees the same list'). The endpoint line further specifies the HTTP call, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context about what the tool does (lists all subscriptions for an account) and clarifies behavioral nuances like shared visibility and omission of signing secrets. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as beel_get_webhook_subscription (singular fetch) or beel_list_webhook_deliveries (deliveries), so an agent might not immediately know when to choose this over those. The context is strong but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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