List Webhook Deliveries

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the organization-context requirement and the inventory of what the result contains. It does not disclose ordering of delivery attempts or error behavior for invalid webhook IDs, but for a read-only listing tool the annotation plus these additions are solid.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core purpose with return fields up front, then the troubleshooting scenario, then prerequisites. There is zero filler and the most decision-relevant information 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 simple 3-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: purpose, return fields, prerequisite ID sourcing, and the org-context requirement. The only notable gap is the lack of ordering semantics (e.g., whether attempts are returned newest-first), which an agent troubleshooting a non-firing webhook would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; all three parameters (webhookId, skip, take) are already documented in the schema. The description adds value beyond that baseline by telling the agent where to obtain the required webhookId ('Get the webhookId from list_webhooks'), which is directly actionable parameter-sourcing information.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List delivery attempts of one webhook') and enumerates the returned fields (event type, status, attempt count, HTTP status, error message). The scope 'of one webhook' clearly differentiates it from the large sibling family, especially list_webhooks, which lists webhooks themselves rather than their delivery attempts.

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 an explicit troubleshooting scenario ('This is where you look when a webhook does not fire') and a concrete prerequisite flow ('Get the webhookId from list_webhooks'). It stops short of explicitly naming tools not to use or stating when-not-to-use conditions, but the scenario framing gives an agent clear grounds to select it.

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