Read a campaign's results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'does not require idempotency' line largely restates that. It does add genuinely new context — required scopes analytics:read and luca:read, and 'data sensitivity: redacted' — which is useful for auth/expectation setting.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the metadata lines are short and scannable. Minor waste: the idempotency line repeats an annotation and the 'data sensitivity: redacted' phrase is vague, but overall there is little padding.

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 need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. The description adds endpoint, scopes, and workspace override behavior, making it broadly callable — the only real gap is the unexplained since/until window parameters that affect the result set.

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 description coverage is 50%: workspaceId and workspaceSlug are documented in the schema, and the description's workspace override note duplicates them rather than extending them. The undocumented query.since/query.until time-window parameters and the id parameter get no clarification (format, time semantics, timezone), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — reading campaign attribution and performance analytics — and pins it to the concrete endpoint GET /api/campaigns/{id}/analytics. It is clearly distinguishable from generic analytics siblings, though it never names the nearest alternatives (e.g. luca_campaigns_get or luca_analytics_content_attribution).

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?

It gives one concrete usage instruction (override the default workspace via workspaceId/workspaceSlug), which tells the agent how to run it in a non-default workspace. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling analytics tools or what happens when id is unknown, leaving tool selection largely to inference.

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