Check benchmark sharing consent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), and the fact that idempotency is not required. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and sentences are short. The trailing block of operation/scopes/idempotency lines reads as generated boilerplate but each line carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: auth scope, sensitivity, and workspace override behavior. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 adds one useful nuance (workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace), which is slightly more than the schema's bare 'Optional Luca workspace id override' but not substantial.

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+resource (read the coach's cross-coach benchmark opt-in state) and clarifies the semantics of that state with a parenthetical definition. It implicitly separates itself from luca_analytics_benchmarks by scoping itself to consent rather than benchmark data, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear exclusion: the opt-in 'is changed from the app, not through this key surface,' telling the agent not to attempt a mutation here. It lacks a positive 'use when' statement or a named alternative tool, so the routing guidance is one-directional.

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