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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by mentioning pagination, the required scope 'org:read', mapping to a GET endpoint, and noting that the same API, billing, and rate limits apply. This extra context about the API behavior is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in the first line, followed by a scope note and an API mapping. It contains no filler and every sentence earns its place. The formatting with bolded scope improves readability.

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 listing tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description is sufficient. It provides scope, API mapping, and rate-limit context. Since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return structure, but the pagination hint implies a list. Overall, it covers all essential information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so every parameter is already documented. The description does not add new semantics; it mentions pagination, but limit/offset are already explained in the schema. Since the schema carries the load, a 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'webhook events', and further specifies 'webhook event delivery records for the current app'. This precisely defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from other list tools like listPasses or listTemplates, which are for different resources. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear understanding of what to expect.

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: it is for listing webhook event delivery records for the current app. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope ('for the current app') and the note 'Do not invent other paths' implicitly guide usage. There are no explicit exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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