List webhooks

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the list is paginated and the webhook secret is never included, which is important because there is no output schema to convey this. It does not discuss response shape or pagination defaults, but the secret caveat is meaningful.

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 short sentences deliver the action, the resource scope, the available filters, and the key response caveat. There is no filler, and the most important information is 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 straightforward read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, pagination, filters, and the most important response detail (secret exclusion). It does not specify default page sizes or exact response item fields, but those are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 already documents all parameters. The description reinforces that orderId scopes the list to a mail order and names the mailbox/status filters, but it does not add formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This is an adequate baseline case.

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 clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a paginated list of webhooks scoped to a mail order, which is distinct from sibling operations like mail_getWebhookV1 or mail_createWebhookV1. The verb 'Retrieve' plus the resource 'webhooks' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when you need a list of webhooks for a mail order, with optional mailbox/status filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like mail_getWebhookV1, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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