List webhooks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful, non-obvious behavior: response secrets are redacted, and new signing secrets are written only to a private local file rather than returned. The signing-secret sentence reads as possible boilerplate for a pure list operation, which keeps this from a 5.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The final clause about signing secrets is arguably off-topic for a read-only list, but the overall structure is tight and readable.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with full annotations, the description is serviceable, and the redaction note is valuable. However, it leaves the 43%-covered pagination parameters unexplained and gives no routing guidance against 'list_webhook_endpoints', both of which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 only 43%: 'after', 'before', 'per_page', and 'include_total_count' are undocumented in the schema. The description supplies no compensating meaning for any parameter, so pagination and cursor behavior remain opaque. Low coverage demanded compensation that is entirely absent.

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 sentence 'List webhooks' states a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title rather than an elaboration. Crucially, it never distinguishes this from the adjacent sibling 'list_webhook_endpoints', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone. Purpose is legible but thin.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With 'list_webhook_endpoints' in the sibling set, some routing hint was warranted. The description states no context for selection at all.

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