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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read operation, and mentioning 'retries and outcomes' adds some content context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, date filtering, or whether the response includes full delivery details. The agent is left without key behavioral expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though the brevity also reflects a lack of useful detail rather than efficient compression of rich content.

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 two-parameter list operation, the description names the returned subject matter (webhook retries and outcomes) and the schema fully defines the inputs. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so details like response structure, limits, or result fields are missing; this is adequate but not complete.

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%; both organization_id and webhook_id are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, context, or relationships between the parameters, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List webhook retries and outcomes'), making the operation and focus clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like commsharbor_webhook_get and commsharbor_webhooks, which manage webhook configuration rather than delivery attempts/outcomes. It does not explicitly call out that differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description does not mention how this differs from related delivery/event tools such as commsharbor_delivery_events or commsharbor_domain_deliveries, leaving selection to infer from the name.

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