List calls behind call intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (full_content), the completed-with-summary filter, and newest-first ordering. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope in the first sentence, followed by compact metadata lines. Efficient overall, though the boilerplate operation/idempotency lines are somewhat mechanical rather than decision-relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers scopes, sensitivity, ordering, and workspace override. The only real gap is the undocumented limit semantics, otherwise it is complete enough for a read-only listing 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 coverage is 67%, with workspaceId/workspaceSlug already documented in the schema, and the description usefully explains the override intent ('override the default workspace configured by environment'). However the limit parameter (1–50, no default stated) is left undescribed in both schema and text, so it does not fully compensate.

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 (List) and resource (calls behind call intelligence) and further narrows scope to 'most recent completed calls with a generated summary, newest first,' even naming the returned fields. That is clear enough for an agent to know what it retrieves, though it never contrasts itself with the related luca_analytics_call_intelligence or the call_events_* siblings.

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 implies when to use it (to surface recent, summarized, completed calls) and gives workspace-override guidance, but offers no explicit when-not or alternatives despite a very crowded sibling set of call/analytics tools. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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