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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by specifying what the log contains (delivery outcome, response code, response body) and that this information is not visible from the webhook settings. No pagination or ordering behavior is described, keeping it from 5.

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 with no filler; the output content is front-loaded and the diagnostic rationale follows immediately.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back and why it matters. It omits mention of paging through large logs or the shape of the counts metadata, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, including the status enum and pagination parameters, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing beyond it about filtering or paging semantics, which is the expected baseline 3.

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?

Explicit verb+resource: returns the webhook delivery log (delivery outcome plus receiver response code and body). It implicitly separates itself from the configuration view ('по самой настройке вебхука этого не видно'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quiz_webhooks.

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 diagnostic context — answering 'why isn't data arriving' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It does not name alternatives (e.g. resend_quiz_webhook_log) or state exclusions, so it falls short of 5.

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