List campaign comment events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: required scopes (campaigns:read, luca:read), a data-sensitivity classification (full_content), and the fact that idempotency is not required. Auth and sensitivity disclosure is exactly the kind of extra behavior an agent can't read off the annotations.

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 capability statement, followed by short metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) that each carry distinct information. No filler or repetition, though the metadata block reads as a header list rather than prose blended for readability.

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-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and auth/sensitivity/workspace behavior is covered. For a four-parameter read tool with nested query filters, the definition is complete enough, though it never characterizes what a comment 'event' record contains beyond the status words.

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 75%, so the schema already documents maxPages and both workspace parameters; the description's workspace override line largely restates the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override.' None of the query filter parameters (status, campaignId, tokenState, providerHealth, cursor) get added meaning in the description, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list comment automation events) and enumerates the event types surfaced (matched, suppressed, blocked, replayed), which goes beyond the bare title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent event-listing siblings such as luca_webhooks_events_list or luca_integrations_events_list, leaving the agent to infer the campaign-comment scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage-adjacent sentence is the workspace override note ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace'), which is operational configuration rather than selection guidance between sibling tools.

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