Check a CRM connection's health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing required scopes (integrations:write, luca:full), data sensitivity (redacted), and that an Idempotency-Key is mandatory with server-side generation as fallback. This clarifies the write-scoped nature of a 'probe' that could otherwise be mistaken for a read-only call.

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 compact metadata lines for endpoint, scopes, idempotency, and workspace override. Each line carries distinct information, though the raw 'Luca operation: POST ...' line is somewhat internal-facing.

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, and the description covers the operational essentials an agent needs: auth scopes, idempotency requirement, and workspace targeting. A brief note on what 'unhealthy' means or on failure modes would make it fully complete, but nothing essential 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 75% schema coverage the baseline is near 3, and the description meaningfully extends it: it explains that idempotencyKey enables safe retries and is auto-generated if omitted, and that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace. That adds semantics beyond the terse schema descriptions, though 'id' itself remains unexplained.

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 ('Probe CRM provider health') that an agent can map directly to the connection identified by the required 'id'. It is distinguishable from neighbors like luca_integrations_crm_connections_list or luca_analytics_crm_sync_health by name and scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 description gives operational prerequisites (scopes, idempotency, workspace override) but no guidance on when to reach for this probe versus alternatives such as luca_analytics_crm_sync_health or luca_integrations_crm_connections_schema. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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