list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value with the auth scope requirement and the pagination behavior, which annotations cannot express; only the total/count semantics of the result set are left unstated.

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?

Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The pagination sentence partially duplicates the schema's cursor description, a small redundancy, but nothing is wasteful.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and pagination — the essentials for correct invocation. It omits any indication of what an endpoint record contains, which would help an agent decide whether this tool answers its question, but the gap is minor.

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 100%, so both `limit` and `cursor` are already documented, including the `next_cursor` convention. The description's cursor line largely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 webhook endpoints'), which is immediately distinguishable from the singular get_webhook_endpoint and from list_webhook_deliveries by the object named. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives the operational context needed to use it: the required `webhooks:read` scope and the exact pagination loop (pass `next_cursor` as `cursor`). It offers no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., use list_webhook_deliveries for delivery history), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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