list_webhook_deliveries

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the operation type (list with pagination/filtering), the response fields visible, and the authentication setup requirement. This is solid transparency for a read-only list operation, though it doesn't mention error cases or rate limits.

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: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a necessary access note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by naming the visible fields: 'delivery status, response codes, and timestamps.' Combined with the access prerequisite and fully-covered parameter schema, it gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could go further by describing pagination response shape, but this is not a major gap.

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%, with all four parameters already documented in the input schema. The description mentions pagination and filtering concepts but adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List webhook delivery attempts with pagination and filtering.' It also clarifies what data is returned ('delivery status, response codes, and timestamps'), making it easy to distinguish from single-delivery tools like get_webhook_delivery.

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 about the access prerequisite: 'needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again.' It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is helpful routing information. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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