Read a pre-call brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: API operation, required scopes, OAuth scope, and data sensitivity 'full_content', which tells the agent this returns sensitive personal data. It does not describe the return shape, but an output schema exists.

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 description is front-loaded with the key purpose sentence and then provides structured technical metadata. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though some operational notes (such as 'Does not require idempotency') are less essential given annotations and could be trimmed.

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?

For a read-only endpoint with full annotations, an output schema, and three simple parameters, the description covers purpose, auth scopes, data sensitivity, and workspace override behavior. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with the workspaceId and workspaceSlug parameters already described. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that these parameters override the default environment-configured workspace. The required 'id' parameter is not described in the description, but its role is clear from the endpoint path and schema format.

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 and resource ('Read the pre-call brief') and elaborates on the brief's contents, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as luca_bookings_get, which likely returns broader booking details.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like luca_bookings_get or when a pre-call brief is available. The required scopes and workspace override notes add operational context but not selection guidance.

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