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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits not present elsewhere: results are 'newest first' and include pending items, and it names the underlying queue (QueuedWebhook). No mention of queue depth, retention, or output volume behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what the resource is and its ordering, the second covers filtering. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all five parameters are documented. Purpose, ordering, and filter intent are all covered. Minor gap: pagination behaviour (range) and any interaction with the retry tool are left entirely to the schema and agent inference.

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% for all five params, so the schema already explains range, fields, format, only_failed and webhook_name in detail. The description's 'filter by webhook name' and 'only_failed to see what has been retried' are restatements, not added semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and scope: the delivery queue (QueuedWebhook) with what was sent, when, and what is pending, plus ordering. This clearly separates it from glpi_list_webhooks (webhook definitions) and glpi_retry_webhook_delivery (action on a delivery), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

It indicates intent for two filters ('filter by webhook name', 'only_failed to see what has been retried'), which is better than nothing. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus glpi_list_webhooks, nor the natural workflow with glpi_retry_webhook_delivery (inspect failures here, then retry). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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