tokportal_list_webhook_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, which cover safety. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response size limits, caching, or whether the catalog is static vs dynamic. The 'public' mention is useful for auth context, but overall the description adds minimal behavioral depth beyond the 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, no wasted words. The first sentence gives the core function, and the second provides an important usage context. Every sentence serves a clear purpose. Excellent structure.

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 has no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (with specific elements listed), and why to use it (to inspect contracts). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format (e.g., JSON array), but the enumeration of catalog components partly compensates.

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 has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (event types, envelope, signature scheme, example payloads), but since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists the webhook event catalog, including supported event types, delivery envelope, signature scheme, and example payloads. The name is clear ('list webhook events') and the description adds the specific content of the catalog. Among sibling tools, tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints and tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries are related but distinct, and this description adequately differentiates by focusing on the event catalog rather than 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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'before creating an API key' so teams can inspect webhook contracts. It also notes it's public (no auth needed). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context around webhook design phases is clear enough to guide selection away from list_webhook_endpoints or list_webhook_deliveries.

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