list_webhooks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (total_items, webhooks array with fields) and explicitly stating what the tool does not do (delivery logs). No contradictions. Slight deduction for not mentioning potential rate limiting or authentication requirements, but overall strong.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, usage guidelines, then a clear Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is relatively simple, with annotations and output schema covering much. The description adds usage guidance and partial parameter semantics. Missing account parameter description is a small gap, but overall the tool is well-documented for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for list_id (format, example, source) but completely omits the optional account parameter. This partial coverage earns a score of 3.

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 sibling tools like delete_webhook by specifying its use for auditing and finding IDs before deletion, and explicitly contrasts with checking delivery history.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (audit integrations, find webhook IDs before deletion) and when not to use (checking delivery history, with reason that Mailchimp doesn't expose logs). It also directs the user to list_audiences for obtaining the list_id.

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