List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains — including failure count and last delivery status — which tells the agent this is a diagnostic-capable read. It says nothing about pagination, default page size, or ordering, which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

It is a single compact clause with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, it is a sentence fragment that front-loads the resource but never states the operation, leaving the definition under-specified rather than truly concise.

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, two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does a fair job by naming the returned fields in lieu of a return schema. It is still incomplete on the operational side: paging semantics and result ordering are undocumented, and there is no guidance on when this list is the right call versus test_webhook.

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 0% for the two parameters (page, limit), and the description does not mention them at all. Neither the meaning of limit's 1-100 range nor the default paging behavior is explained anywhere, so the agent gets no semantic help for the only inputs the tool takes.

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 identifies the resource precisely (webhook subscriptions of the account) and enumerates the notable fields returned (event filter, last delivery status, failure count), which separates it from create_webhook/delete_webhook/test_webhook. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, so the listing action is only implied by the name and title, not stated.

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 mention of when not to use it, and no routing to siblings such as test_webhook (to probe delivery) or create_webhook (to add a subscription). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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