webhooks_events

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the marginal burden is low. The description adds that results include descriptions and category groupings (invoices, payments, clients, sync, proforma), which is useful shape information given there is no output schema.

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 short sentences: the verb+resource+returned fields first, the intended use second. No repetition, no filler, and the most actionable information leads.

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 parameterless, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned and why. A small remaining gap is whether the catalog is static or account-specific, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.

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 all available webhook event types that can be subscribed to') and disambiguates from sibling webhooks_list, which returns configured webhooks rather than the catalog of subscribable types. An agent can pick between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

'Use this to discover valid event names for webhook configuration' gives a clear trigger condition tied to webhook setup. It stops short of naming the follow-up actions (webhooks_create / webhooks_update) or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully explicit routing.

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