Read the coach's objection playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context beyond the annotations: required scopes (coach:read, luca:read), a 'redacted' data sensitivity level, and an explicit 'Does not require idempotency' note, which meaningfully informs callers.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, immediately telling the agent what the tool returns and when to use it. The remaining metadata lines are boilerplate but compact and each carries distinct operational value, so there is little waste.

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 values need not be described. Between the explicit purpose, the workflow trigger, the auth scope requirements, and the workspace-override note, the description gives everything an agent needs to invoke this read-only tool correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (workspaceId, workspaceSlug) are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's sentence about using workspaceId/workspaceSlug to override the environment default adds a small amount of intent (these are overrides) but largely repeats what the schema already conveys.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the coach's objection playbook') and enumerates the exact scope of content: price, timing, trust, fit. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like luca_draft_reply or luca_review_queue_objection_variant without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear temporal/usage cue — read this 'before drafting a reply to one' — which tells the agent when in a workflow to invoke it. It does not name concrete alternative tools (e.g., luca_draft_reply) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives mapping.

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