Check CRM sync health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds real context beyond them: required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), 'data sensitivity: redacted', the underlying GET endpoint, and that no idempotency key is needed. The idempotency line mildly duplicates idempotentHint=true, keeping this short of a 5.

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 and the enumerated counters lead, followed by compact operational metadata lines (endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override). Every line carries information, though the blocky metadata formatting is slightly heavier than prose would be.

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 annotations, a full output schema, and 100% param coverage, the description only needs to add auth/behavior context, which it does (scopes, redaction, default workspace). It is essentially complete for calling the tool correctly; the main omission is routing guidance against sibling CRM-health/sync tools.

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; the description earns above that by explaining the semantic role of both params — they override the default workspace derived from the environment, a fact absent from the schema's terse 'optional override' text.

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 and resource (aggregate CRM-sync health) and enumerates the exact counters returned (synced, pending, local-only, failed, permanently-failed), which lets an agent predict the payload. It scopes the tool to the coach's post-call summaries, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with near-neighbors like luca_integrations_crm_connections_health or luca_integrations_crm_sync_runs_list.

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 line about all-zeros being the expected state for coaches with no synced summaries is useful interpretive guidance, and the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override sentence establishes a default-workspace behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative (e.g., sync_runs_list for run-level detail), so usage is only implied.

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