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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, it discloses the failed-delivery-only scope and that delivery errors accompany the events. It leaves ordering, history or retention, and result truncation behavior unstated.

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 short sentences front-load the resource and scope, then provide the diagnostic use case. The parenthetical about included errors is compact, and no wording is redundant.

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 read tool with one optional parameter, this is enough to investigate missing inbound messages and expect failed events with errors. It would be more complete with a brief distinction from bridge_retry_webhooks and basic result-window behavior, especially because there is no output schema.

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 the description does not explain the sole limit parameter. The schema supplies its default and numeric bounds, but the definition does not explicitly describe its effect on the returned events or how to handle truncated results.

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 identifies the exact resource—webhook events Bridge failed to deliver to the user's URL—and states that the error is included. It clearly implies a diagnostic listing, though it does not explicitly contrast this read tool with bridge_retry_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 second sentence provides a concrete trigger: use the tool when incoming messages are missing in the CRM. It does not explain when to use bridge_retry_webhooks or other diagnostic siblings instead, so the selection guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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