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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that omitting event_id retries everything — a materially different blast radius than single-event retry. It does not describe the response, rate limits, or whether retries are queued.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then covers both the single and bulk modes and the prerequisite. No filler.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema absent, the description covers action, modes, and precondition. Only the result of a redelivery (success counts, queued vs immediate) is left unspecified, which is minor here.

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 coverage is 100% and already labels event_id as optional and sourced from bridge_failed_webhooks, but the schema never says what omission means. The description supplies that meaning explicitly (omit = retry all), which is genuine added semantics.

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 specific verb ('Redeliver') and resource ('failed webhook event'), and covers both modes: a single event via event_id or all of them when omitted. Referencing bridge_failed_webhooks as the source of the id also distinguishes it from that sibling.

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?

Gives a clear usage prerequisite ('after the webhook endpoint is fixed') and the condition that selects bulk mode (omit event_id). It does not explicitly warn against bulk-redelivering when only one event failed, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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