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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the HTTP endpoint and the shape of the response: { valid, page_stats, data:[...] }. This goes beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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?

The description is three short, purposeful sentences. It leads with the core purpose, then the endpoint, then the return shape. No filler or redundant wording. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, endpoint, and response envelope. The main omission is a detailed explanation of pagination behavior, but the schema already documents _page as 1-based and the response hints at page_stats, so this is acceptable.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (_page and params). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema carries that burden.

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 and resource: 'List configured webhooks.' It also names the exact API endpoint, which disambiguates it from the many sibling list_* tools. No other sibling targets webhooks, so the resource is clearly distinct.

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 makes the tool's usage context obvious: it lists configured webhooks. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with knowledgeowl_request, but among the sibling tools no alternative webhook-listing tool exists, so the guidance is effectively clear.

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