tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral details (e.g., what happens if no endpoints exist, pagination behavior, rate limits), but given strong annotations, the bar is lower. A 3 is appropriate as no contradictions or contradictions beyond 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. It could be slightly expanded to include a usage hint without being verbose, but it is efficient for a simple list operation.

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 the tool is a straightforward list endpoint with no output schema, the description is minimally complete—it states what it does. However, context like pagination behavior or default sorting is missing, which could help agents understand the response format. With rich annotations, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides—it merely restates the tool's purpose. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('webhook endpoints'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint' and 'tokportal_get_webhook_endpoint'. It could be slightly improved by mentioning that it returns a paginated list or all endpoints, but it is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tokportal_get_webhook_endpoint for a single endpoint, tokportal_list_webhook_events for events). There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or prerequisites (like requiring a webhook endpoint to exist), so an agent has no context for proper selection.

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