list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuinely useful non-annotation detail: result ordering (newest first), the exact pagination loop (pass `next_cursor` back as `cursor`), and the required `webhooks:read` scope. It stops short of describing what a delivery record contains or how far back the log goes.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then the pagination mechanic, then the auth requirement. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, and required scope, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The gap is the undocumented `status` filter, which could cause an agent to fetch and filter client-side instead of using the parameter.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description reinforces the cursor pagination contract but adds nothing about the `status` filter (a pending/succeeded/failed enum with no explanation anywhere) or what `id` refers to beyond 'an endpoint'. The pagination mechanics are the most valuable part and are already partly in the schema's cursor description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a delivery log for a single endpoint, ordered newest first. This clearly separates it from list_webhook_endpoints (endpoints vs. deliveries) among its siblings, though it never names the alternative tools explicitly.

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 phrase 'Delivery log for an endpoint' implies you call this to inspect past delivery attempts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of related siblings like replay_webhook_delivery or get_webhook_endpoint, and no stated prerequisites beyond the scope. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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