Read call intelligence

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: required analytics:read and luca:read OAuth scopes, redacted data sensitivity, and the provenance of the metrics (post-call events and coach-recorded outcomes). The 'does not require idempotency' line is redundant with idempotentHint=true but not contradictory.

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 the operational metadata is stacked compactly below. Slight redundancy between 'Required scopes: analytics:read' and 'Required OAuth scope: luca:read', plus the unneeded idempotency note, but overall it earns its space.

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, the description correctly avoids explaining return values, and it covers auth/scopes and data provenance for a read-only analytics call. The one material gap is the absence of any differentiation from the sibling luca_analytics_call_intelligence_calls, which an agent selecting among analytics tools would need.

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 67%: workspaceId and workspaceSlug already carry descriptions, while query.start/end do not. The description adds the override semantics for the workspace params and implies the start/end period via 'for a period', which partially compensates for the undocumented date-range params, but adds no format or default-window detail. Baseline 3 fits.

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 resource (post-call intelligence) and enumerates the metrics returned: show rate, close rate, rating distribution, call-to-close lag, repeat-call cohort, day-of-week/sequence show rates, and surprise patterns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling luca_analytics_call_intelligence_calls, so an agent cannot disambiguate the two from the description alone.

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 only guidance is a parameter tip (use workspaceId/workspaceSlug to override the environment default), which is invocation detail rather than usage context. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance against the many other analytics tools in the sibling list, especially luca_analytics_call_intelligence_calls.

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