Get project webhook delivery event

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: pagination limits, the 7-day window, the lack of a direct lookup path, and critical privacy details about response bodies and redacted header secrets. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences; each adds essential information: core purpose, lookup mechanism, scope limits, and response limitations. No wasteful filler, and the most important caveat (not a direct lookup) is positioned early.

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 tool with an unusual non-direct lookup implementation, the description covers all non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know: search window, page cap, event availability requirement, and response body restrictions. The output schema handles return-value structure, and sibling context is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter already described (project, webhook_id, event_id). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The caveats are about lookup behavior, not parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get one webhook delivery event by ID.' It further clarifies this is a project-scoped webhook event and distinguishes itself from any direct lookup by explaining it searches the event-list endpoint. This differentiates it from siblings like get_project_webhook and list_project_webhook_events.

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 operational context: it searches the list endpoint, only covers the past 7 days, inspects at most 10 pages, and requires the event to appear in the paginated list. It warns that this is not a direct event lookup, which tells agents when it may fail, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use relative to list_project_webhook_events.

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