List webhook endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the returned field set; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty account returns.

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?

A single fragment with no waste and the resource front-loaded, but it is compressed to the point of being verbless, and the field enumeration is jammed in as a colon list. It is efficient rather than well-structured.

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's field list does useful work in place of one. But for a list endpoint it leaves out pagination/result-limit behavior and any indication of scope (all webhooks for the authenticated account), which is the main thing an agent still has to guess.

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 and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the field list is a bonus rather than a gap-filler.

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 names the resource precisely ('Webhook endpoints of the account') and enumerates the returned fields (endpoint_id, url, events, status), so an agent knows it is a read of webhook endpoints rather than the create/update/rotate siblings. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it 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?

It conveys no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point at create_webhook, update_webhook, or rotate_webhook_secret as alternatives for non-listing needs. A reader must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before updating a webhook.

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