list_webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: an auth requirement ('Admin only') and a data-redaction behavior ('Secrets are not shown'), which tells the agent not to expect secret values. It stops short of describing pagination or result 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by two short caveats. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it discloses both the auth requirement and the secret-redaction behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or ordering of results.

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 single 'site' parameter is fully documented there, including the list_sites fallback advice. The description adds nothing about the site parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List this site's outbound webhooks') and enumerates exactly what is returned: id, name, target url, subscribed events, status. The list/create/delete distinction against siblings create_webhook and delete_webhook is unambiguous from the verb alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to alternatives; usage is only implied by the verb. It does supply a real prerequisite ('Admin only'), which constrains who may call it, but there is no guidance on scoping or when to prefer this over, say, audit tools.

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