Read the weekly business report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them — the aggregation of five reads and the 'current week' time scope — but says nothing about cost, latency, or rate behavior of the composite call.

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 core action and scope in the first sentence, enumerates contents compactly, then gives the empty-args example. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 explained, and the description makes clear the scope is the current week and the call is optional-argument. Adequate for a zero-required-param read tool; only minor missing detail such as how workspace context is otherwise resolved.

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 description coverage is 100% and both optional workspace override params are documented in the schema. The description's '{} for the weekly report' reinforces that no arguments are required, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return the current week's business report'), enumerates the exact contents (funnel, revenue/ROI, speed impact, forecast, call intelligence), and explicitly says it composes five analytics reads. An agent can distinguish it from luca_analytics_funnel/revenue/forecast etc. purely from the description.

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 phrase 'Composes five analytics reads into a single call' plus the '{} for the weekly report' example tells the agent this is the aggregate entry point versus the individual analytics siblings. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', so it is clear context without full routing rules.

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