List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: URLs are masked, status is a three-valued state (active | failing | off) with accompanying disabledReason/failingSince/lastDelivery fields, and deliveries are signed JSON using Standard Webhooks headers. That tells the agent both what a 'failing' endpoint looks like and how delivery works.

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 tight sentences: the resource identity first, then the exact response fields, then delivery behavior. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the field list is given in a form an agent can parse directly.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the whole burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly, including edge-state fields like disabledReason and lastDelivery. Minor gaps remain: ordering, whether all endpoints are returned or truncated, and per-endpoint event subscription semantics are unstated.

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 the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add argument semantics, and it correctly spends its words on the return payload instead.

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 opening line 'Your webhook endpoints' plus an explicit return-shape enumeration makes clear this is a read of configured webhook endpoints. It is distinguishable from delete_webhook/update_webhook by the read framing and from list_webhook_deliveries by returning endpoint objects (id, url, events, status) rather than deliveries. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than 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?

Usage is implied: you call this to inspect the webhooks currently registered on the account. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this for delivery history, use list_webhook_deliveries instead' statement, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or scoping. An agent can guess correctly, but the description does not route it.

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