Deliveries to this endpoint

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what each delivery record contains (status, error, timing), but says nothing about pagination behavior or how deep the delivery history goes. Adequate, not rich.

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 body is a tight two-clause sentence with the resource scope front-loaded, but the opening line 'Deliveries to this endpoint' duplicates the title verbatim and earns no space. Structure is otherwise clean with no filler.

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?

With six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description does useful work by describing what a delivery record contains. However, it omits pagination guidance (cursor direction, default limit of 10) and the lifecycle meaning of pending/succeeded/failed/dead, which the enum alone does not explain.

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%, including the nested created[gte]/[lt] filter and cursor semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the status filter and mentions no limit, cursor, or date-range behavior, adding essentially nothing 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 names a specific resource ('delivery attempts to this endpoint') and states the returned fields (response status, error, timing), which is more concrete than the title alone. It implies scoping to a single webhook endpoint, distinguishing it from list_event_deliveries, but never explicitly contrasts the two siblings, 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?

'Filter by `status`' is the only usage hint; there is no statement of when to pick this tool over list_event_deliveries or when to follow up with replay_event. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the endpoint-vs-event distinction.

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