beel_list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states that each attempt records the response it got and that retried events appear once per attempt, which clarifies the data semantics beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and then providing filtering hints. It includes the endpoint URL, which is somewhat redundant given the tool name and schema but not harmful. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary flourish.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description provides enough context about the return content (each attempt with response, newest first). It covers key behavioral aspects such as retry duplication and filtering options. Pagination is handled in parameter descriptions, and error states are explained in the schema for account_id and webhook_id. Overall, it is complete for a list operation, though it could detail the exact response structure if needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including security-related notes for account_id and webhook_id. The tool description adds only a minor hint about using event_id to follow a single event, but this is essentially captured in the schema's description for event_id as well. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns delivery attempts of a subscription, using the verb 'Returns' and specifying the resource. It differentiates from siblings like beel_list_webhook_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions) and beel_retry_webhook_delivery (which retries), and explains that retried events appear as multiple attempts, providing distinct behavioral variance.

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 explicit guidance on narrowing results with event_type or event_id, and explains that event_id is used to follow a single event across attempts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, though the context implies it for listing delivery attempts versus retrying or listing subscriptions.

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