list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content (event, status code, timing), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, retention window, or permissions.

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 short sentences plus a one-line parameter note, with the core purpose front-loaded before the scoping detail. Efficient overall, though the agent_id sentence duplicates schema text rather than adding anything new.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, covered safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, what each record shows, and how to scope the query. Missing pagination and retention details are minor omissions.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema; the agent_id prose merely restates the schema text almost verbatim. The hours and limit parameters receive no additional prose meaning beyond their schema descriptions, matching the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 and resource (view webhook delivery history) and enumerates what the listing contains — delivered events, HTTP status codes, timing. It is clearly distinguishable from config-oriented siblings like get_webhook or set_webhook, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 gives real scoping guidance — pass agent_id for an agent's webhook, omit for project-level — which is the main usage decision for this tool. It offers no when-to-use versus alternatives such as test_webhook or get_webhook, and no framing around when one would inspect delivery history at all.

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