List loss reasons

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds scope requirements (bookings:read, luca:read), data sensitivity, and the absence of an idempotency requirement, which is real context beyond the structured annotations. No caveats about pagination or result limits are given.

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 is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by the usage hint and compact operation metadata. The boilerplate scope/idempotency lines are justified as they carry information absent from annotations, though 'Does not require idempotency' borders on redundant for a GET.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers auth scopes, workspace override, and safety. What is missing is any statement of the shape or size of the returned reason list and the meaning of the kind filter's third value.

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 carry their own schema descriptions, and the description reinforces the override behavior. The `kind` query parameter (lost_sale/cancelled_call/no_show) has no schema description, and the description only implicitly gestures at two of the three values, leaving no_show undocumented anywhere.

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 ('List the reasons a sale can be lost or a call cancelled'), which cleanly separates this reference-list tool from luca_bookings_outcome_reasons_create/update. It stops short of 5 because the schema's third enum value, no_show, is never mentioned, so the enumerated scope is under-stated.

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?

'Use one of these codes when recording an outcome' gives a concrete downstream usage context that tells the agent why to call it before luca_bookings_outcome_record. It does not name that sibling explicitly or state when not to call it, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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