Get a booking's outcome

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 real context by listing required scopes (bookings:read, luca:read), noting data sensitivity is redacted, and confirming no idempotency key is needed. It does not describe error or not-found behavior, but the added auth/sensitivity detail is genuinely beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by operation path, scopes, idempotency and workspace override as short scannable lines. Slightly boilerplate-heavy, but every line carries information and nothing is padded.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials an agent needs: auth scopes, sensitivity, idempotency posture and workspace override semantics. Only minor gaps remain (no explicit sibling routing), so it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%: workspaceId and workspaceSlug are already documented as 'Optional Luca workspace ... override'. The description restates the override and adds the useful fact that the fallback is the environment-configured default workspace, but the required `id` parameter carries no description anywhere. Net value over the schema is marginal, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Read where the sale stands on a booking') and adds the useful detail that it also returns 'the version you send back to correct it', which points at the optimistic-concurrency token consumed by luca_bookings_outcome_record. It stops short of naming sibling tools like outcome_history or outcome_record, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 mention of 'the version you send back to correct it' implicitly signals the read-before-update workflow, and the workspace override note gives a usage condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus the many sibling outcome tools (history, record, reasons_list, needs_outcome), leaving alternatives to inference.

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