Lịch sử gửi webhook

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful information by listing what each log entry contains (HTTP code, response time, error label), which conveys read-only inspection of past delivery events. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, result ordering, or any rate/limitation details.

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 short and front-loaded with the most important detail: what the logs contain. The bilingual repetition ('Lịch sử từng lần gửi' and 'Webhook delivery logs') is slightly redundant, but there is no filler or unrelated content.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core return content but does not cover parameter semantics, filtering by status/date, pagination defaults, or what an agent can expect in the response. An agent would need to guess at meaningful usage details.

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?

The description adds no meaning for the 5 input parameters. Schema description coverage is only 20% (from_date is described as YYYY-MM-DD), while page, limit, status, and to_date have no descriptions. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it is entirely silent about how these parameters affect the logs returned.

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 clearly identifies the tool as webhook delivery logs, and adds concrete detail: HTTP code, response time, and error label. This makes it distinguishable from related siblings like monapay_list_webhooks (configured webhooks) and monapay_webhook_stats (aggregate stats), though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple webhook-related siblings (list_webhooks, webhook_stats, test_webhook, retry_transaction), an agent is left to infer that this is for inspecting individual delivery attempts rather than managing webhook configuration or viewing aggregate statistics.

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