tokportal_list_webhook_events

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'public' behavior detail (no auth needed?), which is helpful beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: first states the action and returns, second provides behavioral context (public), third states audience. No wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters, no complex schema, and strong annotations, the description fully explains purpose, usage context, and behavior. No output schema exists, but return values are summarized adequately.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully descriptive. The description adds no parameter info, but there is nothing to add. This is a perfect baseline score.

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 clearly states it lists webhook event types, and specifies what is returned: types, delivery envelope, signature scheme, and example payloads. It is distinct from sibling tools focused on managing endpoints or deliveries.

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?

The description explicitly notes this is a public endpoint for inspecting contracts before creating an API key, implying it should be used for pre-configuration exploration. No alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the context is clear.

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