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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a log read. Beyond annotations, the description discloses result ordering, the full status lifecycle (pending | delivered | failed | expired | dropped), the per-event payload fields, the pagination contract via nextCursor, and an important permission caveat: below admin role, capability URLs and receiver responses come back null.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads what the log is, then filters/pagination, then the permission caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (delivery attempts, HTTP status, error, response head). Combined with the filters, paging contract, and role caveat, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's parameter mentions (since as ISO, cursor = previous page's nextCursor, the status set) largely restate what the schema already documents, adding no syntax or edge-case insight the schema lacks, and it omits orgId/limit entirely.

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 resource (the organization's webhook log of events sent to endpoints) plus its ordering (newest first) and per-event content (delivery attempts, status, HTTP status, error, response head). This is clearly distinguishable from endpoint-management siblings like list_webhook_endpoints and from the generic list_events.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("did the POS get the scan at 12:03 and what did it say") and enumerates the available filters, which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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