tokportal_list_webhook_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the endpoint is public (no auth required) and that it returns example payloads, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding value and context. Ideal length for a zero-parameter catalog tool.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns and why to use it. It lists four concrete output elements and explains the public access rationale, making it fully self-contained for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the output contains (event types, envelope, signature scheme, payloads), giving semantic meaning to the no-input call.

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 the tool lists the webhook event catalog and specifies the exact information returned (event types, envelope, signature scheme, example payloads). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_webhook_endpoints, which focus on endpoint management, not the catalog itself.

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 includes a clear usage context: teams inspect webhook contracts before creating an API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the public endpoint nature and pre-key inspection purpose provide sufficient guidance. Could be stronger if it contrasted with endpoint listing tools.

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