List received Vobiz callbacks

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: duplicates are collapsed, unsigned/invalid requests are rejected per VOBIZ_WEBHOOK_SIGNATURE, results are newest-first, and the tool only applies in HTTP mode. Pagination behavior (given a limit param) is not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by behavioral traits and constraints. Efficient, though the parenthetical event list and mode/read-only notes could be tightened slightly.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, dedup, signature validation, and mode restriction well. The main gap is parameter guidance, but the structured schema partially covers the event filter.

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 only 33% – just 'event' is annotated, while limit and call_uuid are undocumented in the schema. The description lists event types parenthetically but never explains filtering by event, the limit bound, or call_uuid scoping, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) with the exact resource and scope: callbacks Vobiz delivered to the /webhooks/vobiz endpoint and hosted flows, with concrete event types enumerated. An agent can distinguish this received-callback log from config-oriented siblings like list_webhooks without opening the schema.

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 'HTTP mode only' clause is a real usage constraint, and the enumerated event types imply the intended inspection use case. However, it never explicitly states when to reach for this versus alternatives such as list_webhooks or list_call_records, so routing is left to inference.

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