Read trends

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: an empty series is the 'honest, expected state' and points are 'never fabricated.' It also surfaces required scopes and data sensitivity (redacted).

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 purpose in the first sentence, then the empty-state caveat, then operational metadata. Every sentence carries some value, though the metadata block (operation, scopes, idempotency) is boilerplate-heavy and slightly inflates length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. The description covers the workspace override, the empty-state expectation, scopes, and data sensitivity — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The underexplained 'weeks' parameter is the only modest gap.

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% (weeks is undocumented in schema, workspaceId/workspaceSlug are documented), placing the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning for the workspace params by explaining they override the environment-configured default, but gives no semantic guidance on the 'weeks' window itself.

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: weekly metrics (leads, qualified, booked, revenue, rates) delivered as a week-over-week trend series. The 'for charting direction of travel' framing distinguishes it as a time-series read, separable from point-in-time siblings like analytics_revenue or analytics_funnel. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 usage via 'for charting direction of travel' but never states when to choose this over the many other luca_analytics_* siblings (funnel, forecast, rollup, deep_dive). No when-not or alternative routing is given, so usage is inferred rather than guided.

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