webhooks_delivery_detail

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the response includes the full request payload, request headers with signature, and full response received, which is valuable for debugging and security-sensitive inspection. It does not discuss retention, redaction, or error behavior, but the added detail is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 description is two sentences and front-loads the resource and return contents before the use case. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 single-resource read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned even though no output schema exists, and it gives a clear debugging use case. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so all three parameters (uuid, companyId, deliveryUuid) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and precisely identifies the resource as 'a single webhook delivery attempt,' immediately distinguishing it from the sibling list operation webhooks_deliveries. It also enumerates the exact detail payload returned, so an agent can understand what makes this tool different without opening the schema.

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 clearly states the primary use case: 'Use this to debug failed deliveries.' That gives the agent a concrete situation for selecting this tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (webhooks_deliveries) or saying when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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