List campaign versions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context, namely that published versions are immutable ('cannot change'), the required scopes, and data sensitivity. It does not explain pagination or ordering of the history, leaving a small gap.

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 purpose and the published-vs-draft distinction, then structured metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). Efficient overall, though the scope/idempotency lines read as boilerplate appended to most Luca tools.

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 described; the description still supplies scopes, idempotency status, immutability, and workspace override. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only ordering/pagination behavior left unstated.

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 description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug exist to override the environment-default workspace, and the operation line clarifies that the required id is a campaign id. The id parameter's own semantics remain undocumented in both places, so not a 5.

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 and resource ('List a campaign's published version history') and immediately scopes it to published versions rather than drafts, so an agent can distinguish it from luca_campaigns_get / luca_campaigns_draft_update without reading schemas.

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 line 'this is the record of what actually ran rather than what the draft says today' gives a clear selection rule against the draft-oriented siblings, and the workspace override sentence explains context of use. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to call instead, so it does not reach a 5.

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