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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), it discloses concrete behavioral traits: a 100-attempt result cap, omission of event payloads and secrets, no manual resend side effect, and the required OAuth scope webhooks:read. This is meaningful context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope, followed by alternative routing, auth scope, and safety. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the boundaries of the return (latest 100, no payloads/secrets). With one required, fully documented parameter and annotated read-only safety, nothing needed to invoke it 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% and the schema already documents the ID pattern and warns it is not a delivery ID or signing secret. The description reinforces the provenance of the ID but adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('delivery failures or retries') scoped to a webhook subscription, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'list_webhooks for subscription status'. An agent can distinguish it from list_webhooks and create_webhook without opening any 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 states the diagnostic context (failures/retries), the source of the required subscription_id (create_webhook or list_webhooks), and names the alternative tool for a related task (list_webhooks for subscription status). Routing is explicit rather than inferred.

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