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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only list operation and mentions that retry state is included in the results. However, the term 'signed attempts' is unexplained, and there is no mention of pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The verb and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 both parameters documented and a clear purpose, the definition is usable, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the exact return format and pagination behavior unknown. The phrase 'signed attempts' could also confuse agents unfamiliar with webhook delivery semantics.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema ('Webhook endpoint ID' and 'Active organization ID'), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('signed attempts made to one webhook'), and clarifies the output includes 'retry state'. It is scoped to a single webhook, which differentiates it from tools like commsharbor_webhooks or commsharbor_delivery_events, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool as opposed to related tools such as commsharbor_delivery_events, commsharbor_domain_deliveries, or commsharbor_dead_letters. Usage must be inferred solely from the resource name.

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