get_webhook_delivery

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the prerequisites (account + PROOF_API_KEY env var, server restart) and the important negative fact that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not mention pagination or error behavior for a missing/invalid delivery ID.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the access caveat — the ordering is right. The access note is procedural but earns its place because the start_login distinction is non-obvious. Slight redundancy in restating account setup as three steps.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what the call returns (payloads, retry history). Remaining gap is the absence of sibling-routing context versus list_webhook_deliveries and retry_webhook_delivery, which an agent in this large tool set would benefit from.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' as the webhook delivery ID. The description adds nothing about ID format or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_webhook_deliveries), making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get details of a single webhook delivery attempt') and enumerates the payload returned (request/response payloads, retry history). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from sibling list_webhook_deliveries, letting an agent pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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 access guidance is explicit and useful ('needs a Proof account', PROOF_API_KEY, restart, and the counter-intuitive note that start_login does NOT open this tool). However, it never states when to choose this tool over list_webhook_deliveries or when to follow up with retry_webhook_delivery — the sibling-routing guidance is left to inference.

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