List webhook deliveries

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by describing the delivery diagnostics returned and the default scope of reading the first five webhooks when no ID is supplied.

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 compact sentences are front-loaded with the core behavior and the diagnostic use case. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and full parameter schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: what is returned, why to call it, and what happens without webhook_id.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics for webhook_id by explaining that omitting it reads the first five webhooks, though it does not add detail for limit 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 uses a specific verb and resource: showing webhooks and their latest delivery attempts. It also names the exact returned details (HTTP status, error, response excerpt, next retry), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from account/message/campaign siblings.

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?

It gives a clear use case: answering "why is my webhook failing?" and explains the default behavior when webhook_id is omitted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it is strong but not complete.

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