List a lead's call events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing required scopes (call_events:read, luca:read), the full_content data sensitivity level, the ascending order, and the default-workspace override behavior. The 'Does not require idempotency' line is redundant with idempotentHint=true but not contradictory.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then lists operation/scope metadata compactly. Most lines earn their place, though the idempotency line duplicates the annotation.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with scope, sensitivity, ordering, and workspace-override details, the definition gives an agent nearly everything needed to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 both workspace params already carry descriptions, but the description adds the crucial semantic that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override an environment-configured default, which the schema does not explain. leadId's meaning is self-evident from the name and 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?

States a specific verb (read), resource (a lead's full call history), and an ordering guarantee (oldest first) that hints at how it differs from the single-call sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives like luca_call_events_get or luca_call_events_by_booking, so the differentiation is inferred rather than 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?

The scenario (reading a lead's sequential call history) implies when to use it, and the workspace override note is actionable, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative among the call-event siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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