tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—no mention of pagination defaults, filtering options, or what the response looks like. This is a minimal addition, especially given the tool has parameters and no output schema.

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 a single sentence and front-loaded, but it is too terse. It omits important context about pagination and filters that are present in the schema, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and relies on a minimal description. It provides no information about the return format, pagination mechanics, or filtering capabilities beyond what the schema names. For a listing tool with these features, this is incomplete and would leave an agent guessing about expected behavior.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (page, event, enabled, per_page). The description alludes to 'list' but does not elaborate on how parameters affect results. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra value beyond that.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('webhook endpoints'), which is clear. It distinguishes from other listing tools by the specific resource type (e.g., tokportal_list_webhook_events, tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries). However, it lacks scope details like pagination or filtering, which are present in the schema.

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. There are sibling tools for specific webhook-related operations (create, get, delete, etc.), but the description does not mention when listing is appropriate or how it differs from listing events or deliveries.

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