list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds two things annotations do not: cursor-based pagination behavior and the required auth scope (webhooks:read). It stops short of describing ordering or default page size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and pagination model, closing with the auth scope. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 two-param list tool with no output schema, the description should say what a delivery record contains and how the cursor/identifiers behave. Annotations cover safety, but return semantics and parameter formats remain gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. 'Cursor pagination' only loosely implies the 'after' cursor and never names it or explains the evt_/wh_ identifier formats; webhook_id is entirely unaddressed.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('webhook events and delivery attempts') and distinguishes it by scope from the sibling 'list_webhooks', which is a different resource. The verb 'inspect' is slightly softer than the tool name's 'list', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implied by the resource (fetch delivery history for a webhook), and the required scope 'webhooks:read' is disclosed. However, it never states when to use this versus list_webhooks or how it pairs with redeliver_webhook, so the agent must infer the call context.

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