List integration events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: required scopes (integrations:read, luca:read) and data sensitivity level (full_content). The "Does not require idempotency" line largely restates idempotentHint=true, so it adds little, but the auth/scope disclosure is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with the resource named in the first sentence and operational metadata in tight bullet-style lines. The idempotency line is redundant against the annotations, which is the only wasted content.

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 and truncation/pagination semantics need not be re-explained, and the description covers auth scopes, sensitivity and workspace scoping. The main missing piece is disambiguation from the other event/log listing tools, which is a sibling-routing gap rather than a correctness gap.

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 75%, so limit, cursor and source are already documented structurally; the description adds only the workspace-override semantics for workspaceId/workspaceSlug (clarifying that they supersede the environment default). That is a modest but real addition over the schema's "Optional Luca workspace id override," matching the baseline 3 for a high-coverage schema.

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 ("List integration event log") and even names the underlying operation (GET /api/integrations/events), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling luca_webhooks_events_list, which an agent could easily confuse with an 'integration events' log.

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 instruction is "Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment," which is really parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over webhooks_events_list or the CRM sync-runs siblings, so selection is left to inference.

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