List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description's only added claim is 'paginated', which merely restates the page/per_page parameters already visible in the schema, and it omits anything about ordering, filters, or auth scope.

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 well-formed sentence with no waste and the purpose front-loaded. Brevity here is acceptable, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 strong annotation coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a webhook record contains and how pagination offsets/results are surfaced. That gap keeps it at minimum viability.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents account, include, per_page and store_id, and 'page' is self-evident. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, 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 ('Returns a paginated list of webhooks'), which is unambiguous against the create_/get_/update_/delete_webhook siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, so the agent must infer the CRUD distinction from the naming convention alone.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_webhook for a single record. The agent is left to infer that this is the retrieval-many tool purely from the name.

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