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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses useful traits — 'Durable log of Temsor→customer POSTs', 'HMAC when secret set' — but omits ordering, pagination, retention, and read-only confirmation, and pads with irrelevant claims ('Idle $0', 'No DID sales').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the definition is cluttered with cryptic fragments and marketing filler ('No DID sales', 'Advanced: own PBX/Asterisk stays on customer') that do not help an agent invoke the tool and dilute the actionable content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-required-params list tool with no output schema, the endpoint and filter are covered. However, ordering, pagination, and what a delivery record contains are left unexplained, leaving gaps an agent would notice.

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. The description merely restates the query string (limit=20&webhook_id) with no added meaning such as ordering or default behavior. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear verb+resource ('List last N outbound webhook deliveries') and distinguishes itself from pbx_webhooks by referring to the delivery log. The trailing event-type list ('promise/fact/orchestra/redact/ping') adds specificity but reads as jargon an agent can't act on.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like pbx_webhooks, and no indication of when this log is preferable to other PBX listing tools. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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