Explain why a lead qualified

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: read scope requirements (leads:read, luca:read), a data-sensitivity note (full_content), an idempotency statement, and the workspace override mechanism. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. no drafted turn available).

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 value proposition, then a compact block of operational facts (operation, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override). No filler, though the 'Required scopes' and 'Required OAuth scope' lines are slightly redundant with each other.

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 explained. With annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering scope/auth/workspace semantics, the agent has enough to call this correctly; only the precondition for a meaningful explanation is unspecified.

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 description coverage is 67%, and the description's workspace-override sentence largely restates what the schema already documents for workspaceId/workspaceSlug. It adds no guidance on the required `id` beyond the schema's uuid format, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the structured data.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Explain why a lead qualified' and it goes further to define the payload ('the qualifier's reasoning, signals, and confidence from its most recent drafted turn'). This distinguishes it from siblings like luca_leads_get (raw lead data) and luca_leads_draft, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'most recent drafted turn' framing implies when the explanation is available and what it reflects, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. must a draft exist first?), and no routing to alternatives such as luca_leads_get or luca_review_queue_explain.

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