List incoming webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the URLs themselves are never returned (a secret-redaction guarantee) and it enumerates the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the resource definition before the return/redaction facts. No wasted sentences, though the definitional opener takes more space than a bare verb would.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and the redaction rule; annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters. Only pagination/workflow context is thin, but limit/cursor in the schema make that minor.

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%; limit, cursor, and projectId are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., no note on pagination semantics), so the baseline of 3 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?

The description names the resource and defines it precisely ("secret URLs that send a WhatsApp message from one of your numbers to one fixed contact or group"), and states which fields are shown. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_webhooks (outgoing) or get_incoming_webhook (single), so differentiation is left to the reader, but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (get_incoming_webhook for one, list_webhooks for outgoing, create/update/delete_incoming_webhook for other operations). The agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool.

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