Delivery history for an event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about pagination, ordering, whether failed/retried attempts are included, or how far back history goes. It essentially restates the title, so credit above the minimum is not earned.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely repeats the first, only adding the 'to your endpoints' qualifier. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the redundancy costs it.

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 simple read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and rich annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema the description should at least hint at what a delivery record contains or whether results are paginated, and it does neither.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that id is the event id in evt_… format. The description adds no meaning about the identifier or any implied constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the resource (deliveries of an event) and implicitly the operation (history/list), and the second sentence clarifies that these are deliveries sent to the caller's webhook endpoints. It does not distinguish this from the sibling list_endpoint_deliveries, which covers a very similar surface from the endpoint side, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_endpoint_deliveries, list_events, or get_event, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing an existing event id. The agent is left to guess the selection rule from the name alone.

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