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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the extra burden is low, and the description does add real context: pagination and filtering behavior, the fields surfaced, the Proof-account requirement, and the explicit warning that start_login does NOT grant access to this tool. It stops short of stating default page size or what an empty result means.

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 blocks, purpose first, access second, with zero filler. The access block is slightly long but directly actionable for the agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each delivery record contains and explains the auth barrier. For a read-only, four-param list tool the coverage is nearly sufficient; only pagination defaults and ordering are unspecified.

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% with four documented params including an enum for status and a max of 100 on limit, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description says only 'with pagination and filtering' and adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. whether filters combine), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List webhook delivery attempts') and names the facets it exposes (status, response codes, timestamps). It reads clearly against the singular get_webhook_delivery sibling, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from it or from get_webhook_stats.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this list versus get_webhook_delivery (single attempt), get_webhook_stats (aggregates), or retry_webhook_delivery. The ACCESS note tells the agent how to become authorized, but that is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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