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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral details by listing the fields included in the response (event type, status, attempt count, HTTP status, error message), which helps set expectations beyond the annotation. However, it does not describe potential edge cases like empty results or pagination behavior beyond the parameter definitions.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core action, lists returned data, provides a usage scenario, gives a cross-reference, and states a requirement. Each sentence contributes to understanding without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (delivery attempt details), the necessary input context, and the typical use case. It also mentions the required organization context, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (skip, take, webhookId). The tool description further clarifies the webhookId parameter by explaining its source ('Get the webhookId from list_webhooks'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool lists delivery attempts of a single webhook, and explicitly distinguishes its purpose with 'This is where you look when a webhook does not fire.' It also references sibling tool list_webhooks for obtaining the webhookId, making its unique role unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete use case ('when a webhook does not fire'), the prerequisite ('Get the webhookId from list_webhooks'), and a contextual requirement ('Requires organization context'). This offers strong guidance on when and how to use the tool, and implicitly differentiates it from other listing tools.

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