Read the post-call settings

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 value beyond them by disclosing the required scopes (coach:read, luca:read), the 'redacted' data sensitivity, and the underlying GET endpoint, which an agent cannot derive from 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 is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact metadata block (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) where each line carries distinct information. Slightly template-like but no sentence is wasted.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: auth scopes, sensitivity level, endpoint, and workspace selection. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists; only richer usage guidance 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining that these override a default workspace configured by environment, adding the concept of an implicit default that the schema alone does not convey.

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 ("Read the coach's post-call preferences") and enumerates what the settings cover: summarization, CRM push, and coach-filled fields. This distinguishes it reasonably from generic reads, though it does not explicitly clarify its boundary against the sibling luca_coach_post_call_crm_mapping, whose scope partly overlaps with the 'pushed to the CRM' content.

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 only usage-oriented sentence is 'Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment,' which is parameter guidance, not when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named and no precondition or exclusion (e.g., vs crm_mapping or deal_sync) is offered, leaving the agent to infer fit from the name alone.

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