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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by clarifying that 'failed' means failures after all retries have been exhausted, which goes beyond the raw enum. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or how webhookId scopes results, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the useful status guidance earns its place in the second sentence.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and a clear enum, the description is minimally viable. It covers the primary use case (filtering by failed status) but omits details about pagination defaults, ordering, and whether webhookId is a required filter. Given the low schema coverage and absence of annotations, this is a clear gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps it from being inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only explains the semantics of status=failed; limit, offset, and webhookId are left entirely to their self-evident names. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no parameter documentation in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb (List), a specific resource (recent webhook delivery attempts), and a scope qualifier ('recent'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool inbox_webhook_list, which lists webhooks themselves rather than delivery attempts.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: 'Use status=failed for delivery failures after all retries.' This tells the agent how to filter for the most common diagnostic case. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the resource distinction is clear from the tool name and description.

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