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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: secret fields are deliberately omitted from the response. This provides useful safety information beyond a bare 'list' operation. It does not detail pagination or filtering of disabled endpoints, but for a simple read-only listing tool the redaction guarantee is the most important behavior.

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?

Five words, front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. Every token adds information: the operation, the resource, and the redaction qualifier.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description plus full schema coverage is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the 'without secrets' return qualifier. Minor omissions are pagination behavior and whether inactive endpoints are included, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, and the only parameter (organization_id) is already documented as 'Active organization ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full weight and the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('webhook endpoints'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without secrets'). The plural 'endpoints' clearly distinguishes it from singular sibling webhook_get, while webhook_create, webhook_disable, and webhook_deliveries are obviously different operations.

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 plural list verb implies this is the enumeration tool, and the required organization_id in the schema indicates it operates at the organization level. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this over webhook_get or other webhook-related tools, nor does it mention constraints like pagination.

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