webhooks_delivery_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what data the tool returns (request payload, headers with signature, full response), which is useful. It doesn't disclose any authentication requirements, potential data volume/size, or whether headers truly include the signature in all cases, but for a read-only detail retrieval the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates what's returned specifically, and the second gives a crisp usage directive. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only detail-retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and 2 required params, this is complete. The description effectively communicates what it returns and when to use it. Since there's no output schema, the description's explicit enumeration of returned content (payload, headers, response) compensates well.

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 the schema already documents all 3 parameters (uuid, companyId, deliveryUuid). The description adds that the request payload/headers are returned, which is about the output not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting for parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('complete details of a single webhook delivery attempt') and explicit scope (request payload, headers with signature, full response). It distinguishes itself from siblings like webhooks_deliveries (list) and webhooks_get by targeting a single delivery attempt's detail.

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 provides clear context for use ('Use this to debug failed deliveries'), which gives the agent a concrete trigger scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, though the sibling set (webhooks_deliveries for listing) makes the differentiation fairly obvious.

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