Read peer benchmarks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), 'data sensitivity: redacted', the fact that no idempotency key is required, and the expected pre-population state of the benchmark pipeline. That last point in particular prevents an agent from misreporting an empty result as an error or fabricating a comparison.

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 opening prose sentence is front-loaded with the core distinction and the comingSoon semantics before the metadata block, which is compact and scannable. Minor slack exists in the near-duplicate scope lines ('Required scopes: analytics:read' vs 'Required OAuth scope: luca:read') and the idempotency line, which largely restates idempotentHint.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is correctly omitted, and the description supplies the pieces the schema cannot: required scopes, sensitivity level, workspace-override behavior, and the expected empty/comingSoon state. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though it stops short of naming adjacent tools an agent might confuse it with.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the terse schema does not: it tells the agent these two parameters override 'the default workspace configured by environment', which explains why passing neither is valid. It does not explain precedence between workspaceId and workspaceSlug if both are supplied, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 ('cross-coach benchmark percentiles') and pins the scope hard with 'this coach's own... never another coach's data', reinforced by a concrete example ('top 15% for response speed among fitness coaches'). It is only slightly weaker than a 5 because it never names a sibling (e.g. luca_analytics_benchmark_consent) to route the agent away from related tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for peer percentile comparisons, and the note that 'comingSoon: true with an empty metrics list is the honest, expected state' is useful invocation guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no differentiation from sibling analytics tools such as luca_analytics_benchmark_consent or luca_analytics_funnel.

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