List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful fact beyond structured data: OAuth integrations require the webhooks:read scope, which an agent needs before attempting the call.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. "Reads account data" is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint=true, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, safety, and auth. Return shape and pagination semantics are the only real gap, and pagination is partly implied by the documented limit parameter.

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%, with limit, account, and publication_id all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as pagination behavior or the publication_id scope constraint beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource ("List webhooks") that clearly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook in the sibling list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from get_webhook beyond the verb, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over get_webhook or create_webhook. The only routing-adjacent content is the OAuth scope note, which is an auth prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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