List configured webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the closing "Read-only" merely restates the structured hint rather than adding value. The description does add useful scope transparency by enumerating which webhook categories exist (application URLs, SIP trunk webhook_url events). It does not describe pagination or return behavior, so a 3 is appropriate given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Four compact sentences, each contributing context about where webhooks live and what this call returns. The only waste is "Read-only," which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, and the core action is not front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what webhooks are, where they are configured, and that all are returned. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though return format is unspecified (acceptable since no output schema exists).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No semantic gap exists on the input side.

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?

States a clear verb ("lists") and resource (webhooks), and it distinguishes scope by explaining webhooks live on Applications and SIP trunks while per-call URLs are set elsewhere (make_call). An agent can identify what is being enumerated, though the actual action ("This lists all of them") is buried in the middle of the passage rather than front-loaded.

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 mention that "Per-call URLs are set in make_call" implicitly routes the agent away from expecting per-call URLs here, and naming make_call gives an alternative reference point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; usage is only implied.

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