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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing action; the description reinforces the mutation ('queue ... for redelivery'). It adds no details on idempotency, whether the original delivery is replaced, retry behavior, or error handling if the event was already delivered — useful context that is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its condition in one tight sentence. The trailing endpoint string 'Polar: POST /v1/webhooks/events/{id}/redeliver.' is mildly redundant with the tool name but harmless.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema action tool this covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return/error behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (event_id) with 100% schema description coverage ('The webhook event to resend'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (redeliver/queue) and resource (one webhook event), and the 'after your endpoint recovered' clause makes the intent unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like polar_list_webhook_deliveries and polar_list_webhook_endpoints.

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?

The phrase 'after your endpoint recovered' gives a clear triggering condition for use. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g. vs. list_webhook_deliveries to inspect before retrying).

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