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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates it. The description does add genuine context (these are webhook events, returned newest first), but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the limit param or what happens when no events exist.

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, each earning its place: what it lists, why to use it, and its safety profile. The identifying information is front-loaded with no preamble or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description arguably should say more about the shape of returned events; however, for a simple two-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, what is present is nearly sufficient. Only the return-shape detail is missing.

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%, with both credential_id and limit fully documented in the schema (including default 50 / max 100). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (GitHub App installation activity events / webhooks received), scope (for a GitHub credential), and ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_github_credential_usages and verify_github_credential without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case: 'Use this to confirm the integration is alive and see what GitHub has been sending.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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