tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations provide—it doesn't mention pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or scoping (e.g., which account's endpoints?). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description contributes no extra value.

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?

The description is three words—'List webhook endpoints.'—with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place, and the entire purpose is front-loaded. This is an ideal length for a tool with good schema coverage and annotations.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what happens if no endpoints exist, whether results are scoped to a specific account (given openWorldHint=false), or the ordering of results. The combination of annotations and schema covers safety and parameter details, so completeness is acceptable but could be improved with scoping context.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 4 parameters (page, event, enabled, per_page) with clear types, defaults, constraints, and descriptions. The tool description offers no additional parameter information, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 "List webhook endpoints" uses a specific verb (list) and resource (webhook endpoints). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_webhook_endpoint (singular), create/update/delete, and list_webhook_events.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that list_webhook_endpoints retrieves all endpoints while get_webhook_endpoint retrieves a single one, nor does it advise on pagination or filtering. The agent has no context for choosing this over other list/read operations among 56 siblings.

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