List webhooks

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the signing secret is never returned, and the delivery URL is truncated to origin and path. That is real behavioral disclosure about redaction and response shape, though nothing is said about pagination or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the returned-field summary is front-loaded and the redaction caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 endpoint with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the key security caveat. Pagination is handled in the schema, so little is missing; only the lack of guidance on filtering behavior keeps it from 5.

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%, so page, enabled and max_results are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('webhook subscriptions on the team'), and it enumerates the returned fields (delivery URL, subscribed events, enabled flag, dates). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling list_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative or companion tool (e.g. a get_webhook for a single subscription). The only operational note, 'Uses GET /webhooks', is an implementation detail rather than usage direction.

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