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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the 20-submission limit, handling of unknown ids, meaning of each status, the possibility that very recent submissions have no rows yet, and the 18-month retention period. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then adding status interpretations and edge cases. Every sentence contributes new, useful information—no fluff. The structure is logical and 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and interpretation. It covers the statuses, what each means, and edge-case behavior like missing ids, recent submissions, and retention. This is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 form_id and submission_ids including maxItems. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning—'up to 20' repeats the schema, and 'Ids the form does not have are left out' describes output behavior rather than parameter semantics. This is the baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: it reports the delivery history of up to 20 submissions, including every email, webhook, Zapier zap, and integration, plus a rolled-up status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_submission and list_webhook_deliveries by focusing on per-submission delivery outcomes rather than form data or a global delivery list.

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 this tool is useful—when you need to know what happened to specific submissions, including delivery paths and statuses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it implicitly frames the use case well enough that an agent can decide.

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