Read revenue

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description still adds auth requirements (analytics:read, luca:read), the redacted data sensitivity, and the workspace-override fallback behavior. It does not describe rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only endpoint that is a minor gap.

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 return shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by an operation/scope metadata block. No sentence is wasted, though the metadata reads as boilerplate stacked after the useful content.

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 explain return values, and annotations cover safety, so purpose + auth scopes + workspace behavior covers most needs. The one missing element is differentiation from the many sibling analytics endpoints.

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 67%, and the description only lightly touches parameters: it says results are 'for a period' and explains workspaceId/workspaceSlug as overrides. The nested query.period and query.channel enums (five period values, four channels) are left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the medium coverage and modest descriptive contribution.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Revenue attribution and plan ROI for a period' and enumerates outputs (total revenue, ROI, per-channel breakdown). It's clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from sibling analytics tools like luca_analytics_rollup, luca_analytics_forecast, or luca_analytics_content_attribution.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives despite a dense set of analytics siblings. The only operative sentence concerns workspace override parameters, which is parameter behavior rather than usage selection.

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