List webhook delivery logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by mentioning pagination, delivery outcome, duration, retry counts, and mailbox filtering. It does not disclose pagination defaults, ordering, or possible response quirks, but for a read-only list with annotations this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately provides the key returned fields and the filtering option. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only list endpoint with a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough: it states the resource, scope, key returned fields, pagination, and an optional filter. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the exact response envelope isn't described, but the description still gives sufficient detail for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 are already documented. The description only restates the role of orderId and mailbox_id ('given mail order', 'filtering by mailbox') without adding extra format, constraints, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('webhook delivery logs') and scope ('for the given mail order'). It also lists the fields returned, which goes beyond the title. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling log-list tools like mail_listOutboundLogsV1 or mail_listInboundLogsV1, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use case is implied clearly: call this when you need webhook delivery logs for a mail order, optionally filtered by mailbox. But the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling log tools to choose instead, so the agent must infer the distinction from the resource name.

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