List calls still needing a report

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds meaningful non-obvious details: the underlying GET /api/call-events operation, required call_events:read scope, luca:read OAuth scope, full_content data sensitivity, and no idempotency-key requirement. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but output schema exists so return-format detail is less critical.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact operational metadata. Every sentence earns its place, though the scopes/idempotency lines make the definition slightly longer than strictly necessary for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the definition provides everything an agent needs to select and call this read-only listing: purpose, auth scopes, sensitivity, and workspace override behavior. No critical gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% and both optional workspace parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the default workspace configured by the environment, which is more than the schema's 'optional override' wording, though it does not clarify precedence if both are supplied.

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 (List) and resource (calls whose time has passed and still need coach feedback), plus identifies it as the post-call work queue. It distinguishes the tool by state ('needing feedback') but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as luca_call_events_feedback or luca_post_call_queue, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'post-call work queue' label gives clear context for when an agent would reach for this tool: when it needs the queue of completed calls awaiting coach input. However, it names no alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, so selection guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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