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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and not open-world, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. The description adds context about the diagnostic use case, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, return format, or rate limits. With annotation coverage, this is a moderate addition.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second front-loads the diagnostic value. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, the description provides context for use. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or potential error states, which would be helpful for a list tool. No output schema exists, so the description could do more to explain what a delivery attempt record contains.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about parameters like page, status, per_page, webhook_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (a webhook's delivery attempts), which clearly distinguishes it from list_webhooks and get_webhook. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from test_webhook or trigger_analysis, which also deal with webhook activity. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a clear context for use: 'The place to look when a customer says events stopped arriving.' This implies when to use it, but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or alternate tools like test_webhook. No explicit alternatives mentioned.

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