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

While annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: the retry semantics for 'failed' (retried at next_attempt_at) and 'dead_letter' (never retried). It also discloses cursor-pagination mechanics, which are not available in annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each packed with essential information: purpose, status lifecycle, pagination instruction, and prerequisite call. No fluff or repetition, and the most important detail (what the tool does) is 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?

For a list tool with cursor and status, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, pagination, and the required first step. It omits details on optional parameters like limit, query, and brand_id, but these are optional and less critical given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 only 29%, but the description compensates by providing deep meaning for 'status' (each enum value's real-world behavior) and 'cursor' (follow next_cursor until null). It implies the 'id' parameter via the prerequisite call but does not elaborate on limit, query, or brand_id, which remain underexplained.

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 verb (List), the resource (delivery attempts), and the scope (for one webhook). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling aidelly_list_webhooks by focusing on delivery attempts and referencing the prerequisite call to get the webhook id.

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?

It explicitly instructs the user to call aidelly_list_webhooks first to obtain the webhook id, providing a clear usage sequence and differentiation from the sibling tool. The description also explains when to use the tool (to verify events arrived) and defines each status value's behavior.

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