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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds valuable behavioral details: pending webhooks are excluded, results are sorted newest first, and the operation is rate-limited to 1 request/second per tracker. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent set correct 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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, then adding return fields and behavioral caveats. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers what is returned, what is excluded, ordering behavior, and rate limits, while the output schema handles return structure. For a two-parameter read-only tool, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully, including searchBy's enum and the meaning of trackerId. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the full webhook push history for a tracker.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_tracker and resend_webhooks by focusing on webhook push history rather than tracking results or resending webhooks.

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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving webhook push history, which strongly implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient to guide an agent toward this tool for webhook history needs.

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