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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, statusCode 0 meaning unreachable, isSuccess meaning 2xx, and isRetry meaning a repeat of a failed delivery. These decoding rules materially help interpretation and are not derivable from 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?

Two tight sentences: the return shape and field semantics come first, the purpose follows. Every clause carries information and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still decodes the key status fields. Combined with the id-sourcing hint and the health-check use case, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that ids originate from list_webhooks and confirms newest-first ordering, but adds no new syntax or bounds beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Returns a webhook's recent delivery attempts') and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly separates it from list_webhooks and test_webhook, so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives an explicit use case: check webhook health and whether the target endpoint accepts QUESTIONSTAR's events. It also routes the agent to list_webhooks for the required ID. It stops short of naming test_webhook as the contrasting alternative, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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