tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, ordering, or that it returns a list of delivery attempts). The description is neutral and does not contradict 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 three-word sentence, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, a slightly more detailed description would be beneficial without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., delivery status, timestamps, retry history). It also fails to mention pagination behavior or how to interpret the results. With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective agent usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 5 parameters. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., filtering by success and event_type) or provide usage examples, but no deduction is warranted.

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 states the action (list) and resource (webhook deliveries), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_webhook_events or list_webhook_endpoints. The verb+resource is specific, but the lack of differentiation prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retry_webhook_delivery or test_webhook_endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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