Read the coach's profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely new context: required scopes (coach:read, luca:read) and 'data sensitivity: redacted'. 'Does not require idempotency' is largely redundant with idempotentHint=true.

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 use case in the first sentence, then a compact metadata block. 'Does not require idempotency' duplicates the idempotentHint annotation and is the only wasted line.

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 GET with an output schema, complete annotations, documented scopes, and workspace-override semantics, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; return values are properly delegated to the output schema.

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%, so the two workspace parameters are already documented. The description adds the fact that these override a workspace configured by environment, which explains the default behavior the schema does not, though it omits precedence if both are supplied.

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 account record') and enumerates the returned fields (name, timezone, business hours, tone slider), which functionally separates it from niche/post-call coach tools. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

'Use it to know when the coach is reachable and how formal they want to sound' gives a clear motivating context for calling it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as luca_coach_niche or luca_coach_post_call_settings.

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