list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses authentication via API key, max 10 concurrent requests, read-only nature, and safe-to-retry behavior. This provides essential behavioral context for an agent.

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 well-structured with separate paragraphs for purpose, usage guidelines, and structured Args/Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given one parameter and an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, prerequisites, constraints, and detailed return format (total_items, webhooks array with specific fields). It covers all necessary context 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 provides zero description for list_id. The description compensates by specifying the format (10-char alphanumeric), an example, and how to obtain it (from list_audiences). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists webhooks for an audience, showing callback URLs, events, and source filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_webhook by explicitly mentioning use in auditing and finding webhook IDs before deletion.

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?

Provides explicit usage contexts: auditing integrations and finding webhook IDs. Also includes a clear 'Do not use' for checking delivery history, and states it's read-only, safe to retry, and where to obtain the list_id from list_audiences.

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