Read the trust score

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavior-relevant context beyond them: required scopes ('analytics:read', 'luca:read'), the data sensitivity level ('redacted'), and the note that no idempotency is required — all useful to an agent planning the 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?

The human-readable purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Slight redundancy exists — 'Does not require idempotency' echoes the idempotentHint annotation — but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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 values need no prose explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the scope/sensitivity/workspace details, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly; only the channel-filter semantics are left unaddressed.

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% (workspaceId/workspaceSlug are documented), but the nested period and channel enums have no descriptions. The prose repeats the workspace-override hint and mentions 'for a period', adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema and leaving the channel filter unexplained.

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 first sentence names a specific set of metrics ('draft approval, edit, and rejection rates plus the auto-send gate flag') and a scope ('for a period'), so the agent knows exactly what data this produces. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the many other analytics siblings (e.g. lead_score, funnel), which is the only reason it falls short of 5.

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 description adds operational guidance — 'Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment' — which is actionable. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus the other analytics endpoints, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope note, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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