Drill into one objection type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), full_content data sensitivity, limit-bounded results with a hasMore truncation flag, and the empty-state contract. Only return-format/pagination mechanics are left implicit.

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 semantically valuable row-shape sentence, then groups the operational metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) in a compact block. Slightly boilerplate-heavy ('Luca operation: GET /api/...', 'Does not require idempotency') but every line is short and no sentence is wasted.

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, the description need not restate return values, yet it still covers access prerequisites (both scope layers), sensitivity class, pagination behavior, the default-workspace override path, and the empty-state contract. For a nested-schema, read-only analytics tool this leaves nothing material an agent needs before calling it.

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 50% (only workspaceId/workspaceSlug are documented). The description adds that limit bounds results, that hasMore signals truncation, and that workspace override is possible – but it says nothing about the period or channel sub-parameters or the objection type enum values, leaving half the surface to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('per-conversation drilldown for one objection bucket') and enumerates the row shape (lead name, verbatim objection quote, draft-edited flag, latest call outcome), which makes it distinguishable from the aggregate sibling luca_analytics_objections without opening the schema. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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?

Implies the use case (getting per-conversation detail behind one objection bucket) and notes the empty-list case is expected plus that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. It gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-luca_analytics_objections routing or prerequisites beyond scope declarations.

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