Read the post-call CRM mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds auth requirements (coach:read, luca:read), a redacted data-sensitivity marker, the underlying endpoint, and the workspace-override behavior, which is genuine value beyond 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?

The purpose and usage condition are front-loaded in the first two clauses, followed by a compact metadata block (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Every line carries information, though the boilerplate metadata lines are slightly template-like rather than tailored.

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?

The tool is a simple read with two optional parameters and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, auth, sensitivity, and workspace override behavior are all covered; the only gap is routing guidance relative to the other CRM-mapping siblings.

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 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override a default workspace configured by the environment, which clarifies the parameters' purpose beyond the schema's terse 'Optional Luca workspace id override.'

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: 'Read which CRM field each post-call value writes to', which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from related siblings such as luca_integrations_crm_mappings_suggest/confirm or luca_coach_post_call_deal_sync, so an agent must infer which mapping tool to use.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Check this before a CRM push to know what will land where.' That is a clear context for when to call it, but no exclusions or named alternatives are offered, so the boundary against other CRM-mapping tools remains implicit.

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