Check what a campaign's channel supports

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

With annotations already covering the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, the description adds genuinely useful context annotations lack: the backing operation, the required campaigns:read scope and luca:read OAuth scope, a redacted data sensitivity level, and the fact that idempotency is unneeded. It stops short of describing the nature of the returned blockers, but that is appropriate given an output schema exists.

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 operative purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by compact, scannable metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). No filler, though the stack of near-boilerplate metadata lines is slightly dense.

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 capability check with an output schema, the annotations carry the safety profile and the description supplies endpoint, auth scopes, and the workspace-override parameter. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only an explicit tie-breaker against sibling capability/channel tools is missing.

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 67%, so the schema already documents workspaceId and workspaceSlug as overrides. The closing sentence explains the override intent (use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the environment default), adding modest value, but nothing on the required uuid id or format constraints beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Evaluate provider capability blockers for a campaign draft," backed by the concrete endpoint GET /api/campaigns/{id}/provider-capabilities. This clearly separates it from generic campaign reads like luca_campaigns_get, though it does not distinguish itself from other capability-checking siblings such as luca_capabilities_get or luca_channels_features.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as the draft needing to exist. It mentions that idempotency is not required and how to override the workspace, but neither is usage guidance about selecting this tool.

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