list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description stays consistent with that. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the tool requires a Proof account, needs PROOF_API_KEY set with a server restart, and explicitly notes that start_login does NOT unlock this tool — an important failure mode for an agent. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or whether results are ordered.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the access prerequisite, with no filler. The only minor cost is that the ACCESS block, while valuable, is somewhat abrupt and could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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, four-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and the auth prerequisite that would otherwise cause a silent failure. What is missing is the relationship to the sibling single-delivery and stats tools and any pagination semantics.

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 four parameters (page, limit, status, event_type) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and example event type. The description only restates 'pagination and filtering' generically, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List webhook delivery attempts') and adds scope details (pagination and filtering) plus the payload contents shown. It is clear, though it never names the sibling get_webhook_delivery or explains how single-delivery lookup differs from listing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' plus the mention of filtering; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_webhook_delivery, get_webhook_stats, or retry_webhook_delivery. The ACCESS block does give a clear precondition (a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY), which is useful routing guidance but not when-to-use guidance.

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