Get a booking's call event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the expected 404 when the call hasn't happened, the required scopes (call_events:read, luca:read), full_content data sensitivity, and that idempotency is not required.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key 404 behavior, then the operational metadata. There is mild redundancy in listing 'Required scopes' and 'Required OAuth scope' separately, but nothing is wasted enough to impede use.

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, return values needn't be described, and the description covers the remaining gaps: the by-booking lookup key, the normal 404, scopes, and workspace overrides. Complete enough for an agent to call it 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% and the description adds meaning for the workspace override parameters ('override the default workspace configured by environment'), which the schema only labels as 'Optional Luca workspace ... override.' bookingId is self-evident from name and UUID format, so overall semantics are adequately covered.

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 ('Find') and resource ('the call event attached to a booking'), and the 'by booking' scoping clearly distinguishes it from luca_call_events_get (by id) and luca_call_events_by_lead (by lead). An agent can pick the right retrieval sibling from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear usage context: keyed on bookingId, with workspaceId/workspaceSlug overriding the environment default. It also explains the normal 404 case so the agent doesn't treat it as an error. It does not explicitly name when to prefer luca_call_events_by_lead or luca_call_events_get, so it stops 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.