list_webhook_destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context by stating the operation is read-only and that secret material is omitted from the response. It also clarifies it returns configured outbound destinations, which goes beyond the annotation alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the key differentiator ('without secret values'), then gives read-only context and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 simple zero-parameter read-only listing, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, what is omitted, and how related operations differ. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently indicates the nature of the result without needing to document return fields.

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, so parameter-level semantics are not needed. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description provides no misleading parameter details. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 webhook destinations and immediately distinguishes it from related operations by noting secret values are omitted. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'webhook destinations' makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_webhook_destination and list_webhook_deliveries.

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 explicitly names alternatives and when to use them: create_webhook_destination to add one and list_webhook_deliveries for send history. This gives an agent direct routing guidance and clarifies where this read-only listing fits among the webhook-related sibling tools.

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