tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds nothing beyond what annotations state, but there is no contradiction. A 3 is appropriate because the description does not add meaningful behavioral context 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the relevant verb and resource. It is minimal but contains no wasted words. However, given the need for usage guidance, it could be slightly more beneficial without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description is sparse but combined with the schema and annotations it is minimally complete for listing items. However, it lacks any mention of what is returned (e.g., a paginated list of delivery objects) and does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools.

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 all 5 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List webhook deliveries' uses a clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('webhook deliveries'). Among siblings, there are tools like tokportal_list_webhook_events and tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints, but the description directly distinguishes this one as listing deliveries, not endpoints or events.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include tokportal_retry_webhook_delivery and tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint, which are related but the description does not clarify that this is for viewing historical delivery records, not for retrying or testing.

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