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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), so the description adds value by disclosing ordering ("newest first") and the per-attempt fields returned, which matters for interpreting results. Pagination behavior is only gestured at with "page through" — no mention of cursor scope or rate/retention 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited purpose statement; every clause carries distinct information (scope, ordering, returned fields, use case) and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 usefully enumerates the salient returned fields and the ordering, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The remaining gap is pagination mechanics for the cursor parameter, a minor omission for a simple read-only list tool.

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 0% and none of the three parameters are documented in the schema. The description only implies pagination ("page through") and, via "one endpoint", that one parameter scopes to an endpoint; it never clarifies cursor semantics or the 1–200 limit range, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ("page through") and resource ("attempts to post events to one endpoint") and names the payload fields returned (status code, error, duration). It is clearly distinguished from get_webhook_endpoint (config) and redeliver_webhook_event (re-send) by focusing on historical attempts for a single endpoint.

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 place to see why an endpoint failed" states the diagnostic use case clearly, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as redeliver_webhook_event for remediation or get_webhook_endpoint for configuration, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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