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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, and the description adds real context: no database access is needed and it discloses the exact diagnostic fields returned (status, error text, attempt number). It doesn't mention ordering beyond 'most recent' or pagination limits, but the annotation bar is met.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the field list, then the use case. Efficient, though the trailing API-reference URL is boilerplate rather than informational.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the debug use case and limit default context. Adequate for a two-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around result ordering/volume.

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 50%: limit is documented in the schema (default 20), while worker_id carries only format/pattern. The description's 'for one of your workers' loosely implies worker_id's role but adds no scoping or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('returns the most recent delivery attempts for one of your workers') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from get_webhook and clear_webhook siblings.

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 concrete triggering scenario ('Use this when a worker is not receiving events or its webhook has been suspended'), which is clear context. It does not, however, name alternatives such as get_webhook or explain when not to use it.

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