List inbound webhook URLs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: signing secrets are stored encrypted and never returned, and it clarifies that reuse vs. minting of webhook URLs depends on supplying webhook_trigger_id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the security caveat, then the integration rule. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the security constraint, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is minor: no guidance on empty results, pagination, or ordering of the listed URLs.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional webhook_trigger_id is documented in the schema as 'Only this webhook.' The description adds no filter syntax or behavior beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented parameter set applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it lists the account's inbound webhook URLs and enumerates exactly what is returned for each (webhook_trigger_id, callable url, signed status, firing automations, call count). An agent immediately knows this is a read of webhook configuration, not a crawler, workflow, or browser tool like its siblings.

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?

It explains the relationship to writ_create_automation (reuse an existing webhook_trigger_id; when='webhook_received' without it mints a new URL), which supplies real context for the trigger id. However it never states when to call this listing tool rather than alternatives, nor any exclusion or precondition for the optional filter.

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