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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the retry semantics of each status, that dead_letter means retries are exhausted or the webhook was removed, and that cursor pagination terminates when next_cursor is null.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then status semantics, pagination, and id sourcing. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema besides the field name.

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 and only hint annotations, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it reasonably well by defining each status and the pagination terminator. It leaves a few parameters (brand_id, workspace_id, query, limit) unexplained, which is the only notable gap.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the status values, the cursor/next_cursor pagination contract, and where the id comes from, but says nothing about limit, brand_id, workspace_id, or the sparse query override object. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 delivery attempts for one webhook) and immediately gives the purpose (to check whether events arrived). It is clearly distinct from the sibling aidelly_list_webhooks, which it even names as the source of the 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?

"to check whether events arrived" gives the concrete situation that selects this tool, and it routes the agent to aidelly_list_webhooks to obtain the required id. It stops short of naming when-not conditions (e.g. use the webhook config tool instead), so it does not reach the top tier.

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