List Webhook Deliveries

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and open-world, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 30-day retention window, newest-first ordering, and the supplied limit with a max of 100.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The scope, ordering, limit, and diagnostic purpose are all front-loaded, and the use case sentence 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 read-only, single-required-parameter list tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description covers the important operational constraints: time window, ordering, and limit. Nothing needed to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the limit cap but does not add substantive parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: it lists webhook delivery attempts, not webhook endpoints or webhooks themselves. It also adds distinguishing scope details (last 30 days, newest first, limit cap) that separate it clearly from sibling list_webhooks.

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 gives a clear use context: diagnosing why an endpoint never received or acknowledged an event. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the diagnostic framing plus sibling names provides enough directional guidance.

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