Get a call event

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing required scopes (call_events:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (full_content), and the absence of an idempotency requirement, which is useful operational context beyond the structured hints.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, then lists operation, scopes, idempotency, and workspace override as compact metadata lines. Each sentence earns its place; only minor redundancy in restating scopes.

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?

For a read-only single-resource tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: scopes, sensitivity, workspace override, and idempotency status. Return-value detail is correctly omitted since an output schema exists.

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 id field is undocumented there, but the description clarifies the purpose of workspaceId/workspaceSlug by explaining they override the environment-default workspace, adding meaning beyond the brief schema text. The core id lookup is implicit in 'GET /api/call-events/{id}'.

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 singular resource (one call event) and enumerates the salient fields returned (outcome, rating, summary, CRM sync state). The 'one call event' scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list/lookup tools such as luca_call_events_by_booking and luca_call_events_by_lead.

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 description implies usage by stating it fetches a single event by id and explains the workspace override, but never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives like luca_call_events_by_lead or luca_call_events_feedback. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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