tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior or filtering semantics. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a brief mention of the required ID parameter.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of a complete schema with 100% coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the required endpoint ID, pagination defaults, or filtering options, which would be helpful for a complete understanding. The output schema is absent, so the description could have explained what the response contains.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when 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' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (webhook deliveries). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'tokportal_list_webhook_events' and 'tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints', though it doesn't explicitly mention the endpoint ID parameter or the filtering capabilities.

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 implies usage for retrieving webhook delivery records, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokportal_retry_webhook_delivery' or 'tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint'. It also doesn't mention that an endpoint ID is required, which is a key usage prerequisite.

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