List Webhooks

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, and the description still adds real value: the signing secret is included only for full-access/account-scope keys and omitted for read-only keys. The HMAC-SHA256 delivery/signature detail further explains what the listed endpoints do, which helps interpret the failure counters and last-error fields.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and does the core work. The second sentence, while informative, is long and largely explains webhook delivery mechanics (HMAC over `{timestamp}.{rawBody}`, header name) rather than how to call this specific list tool, so it partially earns its place as context but inflates the definition.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates id, URL, subscribed events, status enum, failure count, timestamps, last error, and secret-inclusion rules. The notable omission is pagination/result-limit behavior, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level confusion is possible.

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 the webhook endpoints') scoped to 'the authenticated account', which cleanly separates it from get_webhook (single) and list_webhook_deliveries (delivery log) without needing to name them. An agent can tell immediately what this returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description of returned fields suggests an inventory/discovery step before update_webhook, delete_webhook, or test_webhook, but it never states when to prefer this over get_webhook or list_webhook_deliveries, nor any precondition. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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