Get a lead's timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds genuinely new context: the required scopes, the OAuth scope, and notably data sensitivity: full_content, which warns the agent that sensitive data is returned. The "does not require idempotency" line is somewhat redundant with idempotentHint=true, keeping it from a 5.

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 well, but the body is a metadata list with labels (Luca operation, Required scopes, Required OAuth scope) and a "Does not require idempotency" line that duplicates the idempotentHint annotation. It is organized but carries some low-value filler.

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, and for a simple single-resource GET the description covers scopes, data sensitivity, and workspace defaults. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from other lead-read tools, which prevents a 5.

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% (id is undescribed, the two workspace params are documented inline). The description's "use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment" adds real meaning about what happens when they are omitted, but it doesn't address precedence between the two or the required id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get a lead's full timeline and notes") and names the endpoint GET /api/leads/{id}, so an agent understands this is a single-lead read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like luca_leads_list, luca_leads_explain, or luca_call_events_by_lead, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It supplies operational prerequisites (required scopes leads:read, OAuth scope luca:read) and a workspace-override instruction, which imply how to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as luca_leads_list or luca_leads_explain, leaving selection to inference.

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