Analyze leads who stopped replying

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description goes further by disclosing required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (full_content), and the absence of an idempotency-key requirement, which an agent needs before calling. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but for an aggregate read that is minor.

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-loads the substance (what is measured, and that it is an aggregate) before the routing sentence and the operational metadata block. The operation/scope/idempotency lines are somewhat boilerplate but each carries actionable info; nothing is redundant with the annotations.

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 values need not be described, and the description instead covers scope, sensitivity, workspace resolution, and report shape. Remaining gaps are the optionality/defaults of period and channel, which the schema does not fill in either.

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% and the nested query object's period/channel enum properties carry no descriptions. The description mentions period filtering only in passing ('during a period') and never explains channel, so it does not compensate for the gap. It does add real meaning for the workspace override ('override the default workspace configured by environment'), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Summarize leads who stopped replying') and enumerates the exact outputs: count, follow-up recovery rate, estimated lost revenue, and stall reasons. The explicit contrast 'This is an aggregate report, not a list of individual leads' separates it from luca_leads_list and other list-shaped 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?

Gives clear context ('during a period') and an explicit negative: it is an aggregate report, not a per-lead list, which steers agents away from list tools. It does not name a concrete alternative or state when to prefer this over neighboring analytics tools such as luca_analytics_loss_reasons or the action-oriented luca_rescue_silent_leads, so guidance stops short of the top mark.

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