list_webhook_deliveries

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses many operational traits: only the latest 50 deliveries, exact payload fields included and excluded, no signing secrets or receiver response body, and that HTTP 2xx means receipt rather than external-agent processing. It also states the required permission and authorization model.

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 key scope is front-loaded and the description is dense with useful constraints. However, the sentence about reusing an idempotency_key after an uncertain mutation is irrelevant to this read-only listing tool and slightly harms focus.

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?

The description covers return content, exclusions, limits, permissions, and authorization context, which is strong for a one-parameter tool with an output schema. The stray idempotency_key guidance is not applicable and prevents a perfect score.

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 the sole endpoint_id parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics and mentions an idempotency_key that is not actually an input parameter, which is potentially misleading.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read the latest 50 deliveries and their exact JSON payloads for one webhook. It also scopes what is included and excluded (identifiers, sender line, dates, matched terms; never page text), making it clearly distinguishable from endpoint-listing or replay tools.

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?

It establishes clear context: read deliveries for one webhook, requires webhook.manage, and shares the authorization model of the webhooks endpoints API. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as replay_webhook_delivery or list_webhook_endpoints, and the idempotency_key sentence is confusing for a read-only tool.

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