Read why deals are lost

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), the redacted data sensitivity level, that idempotency is not required, and the data's provenance (derived from per-lead loss analysis generated when a lead goes silent/lost). Only rate limits or refresh cadence are absent.

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 category list are front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by compact metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Some density in the first sentence but no wasted filler.

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 a rich output schema, annotations, and covered parameters, the description supplies the remaining essentials: auth scopes, sensitivity, and how the data is produced. Only the period semantics and sibling disambiguation are left implicit.

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%; both workspaceId and workspaceSlug already have their own descriptions, and the description merely restates the override behavior. The period parameter and its five enum values are not explained in the description, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific resource (category breakdown of 'why you lost' analyses) and enumerates the exact categories returned plus the metric (count and estimated lost revenue). It is clearly not a generic analytics tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like luca_analytics_objections or luca_analytics_ghosted_leads.

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 only implied: it is a read analytics call for a given period, and the last line gives a concrete hint for overriding the default workspace. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling loss/objection analytics tools, nor any exclusions.

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