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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the `org:read` scope, the exact API path, the paginated response nature, and the note that the same PassFast HTTP API, billing, and rate limits apply. This gives the agent operational expectations without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and supporting details kept to a few high-value sentences. Every line adds useful information: resource scope, API mapping, auth scope, and path constraints. There is no filler.

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 read-only paginated list tool with fully self-describing parameters, the description covers what the tool does, what scope it requires, how it maps to the underlying API, and important constraints about not inventing other paths. No critical information needed to select or invoke this tool 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults for limit and offset and enums for event_type and delivery_status. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the list is paginated, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'List webhook events' and further clarifies that it returns 'a paginated list of webhook event delivery records for the current app.' It also maps to the exact OpenAPI operation and HTTP endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like testWebhook.

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 description provides clear context: this lists webhook event delivery records for the current app, is scoped to `org:read`, and maps to GET /manage-org/webhook-events. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over an alternative, but no close sibling exists, so this context is sufficient.

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