List webhooks

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a read operation. It adds that output can be used to see delivery destinations and locate webhook IDs, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or ordering. That is useful but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences, with the core action front-loaded and followed by concrete use cases. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, this is complete: it states the scope, explains the two main purposes, and implies the output contains webhook IDs and delivery destinations. With no output schema present, the description still gives an agent everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema documents none, so there is nothing to clarify. The phrase 'all registered webhooks' reinforces that there is no filtering, which is a small semantic benefit beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all registered webhooks for this JetAPI account.' The word 'all' distinguishes it from the singular get_webhook sibling, and the mention of finding an ID before updating or deleting connects it to the webhook lifecycle siblings without confusing their roles.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect where events are delivered or to find a webhook ID before updating or deleting. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_webhook for a single record, but the use cases are specific enough for an agent.

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