Recent webhook deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. The valuable addition is the enumerated response fields (delivered or not, HTTP status, latency, attempt), which stands in for the missing output schema. It does not disclose the recency window or ordering, which matters for a tool named 'recent'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, then the use case. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the inline field list is what makes this definition callable with confidence, and the debug use case is stated. Remaining gaps are the recency window/retention and result ordering, minor for a small two-param read tool.

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% and both parameters (limit with default/max, instance_id with env-var fallback) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Lists recent webhook deliveries') and enumerates the returned fields (event, delivery status, HTTP status, latency, attempt). It is clearly distinct from configuration siblings like get_webhook/set_webhook, though it never names test_webhook, which is the closest functional alternative.

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?

'Use to debug why your server is not receiving events' gives a concrete triggering scenario, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of routing the agent between this tool and test_webhook (inspect real deliveries vs. trigger a synthetic one), so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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