Read a no-show recovery

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

Goes beyond the annotations by declaring required scopes (bookings:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), and that no idempotency key is needed. Those are auth/safety facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone. It adds little about failure modes (e.g. behavior when a booking has no recovery), but the bar is lower given full annotation coverage.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful return-value detail, but the trailing block of operation line, OAuth scope, sensitivity, and idempotency notes is partly boilerplate that repeats annotation territory. Every line is not equally earning its place, though none is harmful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it still describes the fields of interest; params and auth needs are covered. The main omission is how the recovery read relates to the stop sibling and what happens when no recovery exists, but for a simple read this is close to complete.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining that workspaceId or workspaceSlug override the environment-default workspace, which is more than the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override.' The required id is implicitly the booking being read. Enum/format details for id remain schema-only, which is acceptable.

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 (read) and resource (a booking's no-show recovery) and then enumerates the exact state values returned: active, paused, stopped, done, plus next follow-up and last-send time. This lets an agent picture the response without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. luca_bookings_recovery_stop), leaving differentiation to be inferred from the verb.

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 only implied: the tool is a read of recovery state and 'Does not require idempotency' hints it can be called freely, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no routing to the mutation sibling luca_bookings_recovery_stop. An agent in the bookings-recovery area would pick the right tool, but the definition does not do the routing for it.

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