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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by framing redelivery as an action that queues a real event. Adding that the endpoint has recovered gives useful context about prerequisites. Minor gap: no mention of idempotency or duplicate-delivery risk, which matters for a redelivery action.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the recovery condition. The API path suffix is boilerplate 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-param mutation with no output schema and destructiveHint set, the description covers the trigger, the action, and the target adequately. The endpoint/path reference is slightly extraneous but not misleading.

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 100% and the single parameter event_id is fully documented. The description adds only that it is a webhook event to redeliver, matching the schema. Baseline 3 since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb 'redeliver' plus specific resource 'webhook event', and disambiguates from sibling polar_list_webhook_deliveries by naming the action rather than a listing. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

States the condition for use: 'after your endpoint recovered', which implies the endpoint was previously failing. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative named, but the recovery context is a clear trigger.

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