List the post-call work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive status, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the two halves are tracked separately, so membership in one list does not imply membership in the other. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or volume limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the two work categories before the closing tool and the example. The example sentence ('call with {} after a day of calls') is slightly awkwardly phrased but earns its place by showing the zero-argument invocation.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers what the queue contains and how items leave it. What remains missing is any note on ordering, pagination, or expected item volume — minor gaps against a read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage.

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 100% for both optional workspace override parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only implies that the tool works with no arguments ('call with {}'), which adds marginal value. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return everything waiting on the coach after a call') and enumerates the two concrete work types the queue covers: calls needing a report and attended calls with no revenue outcome. This is specific enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings like luca_call_events_needing_feedback and luca_review_queue_list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the companion action ('Close an item with luca_close_call_loop') and frames the timing context ('after a day of calls'). It does not state a when-not-to-use condition or clarify how this differs from the narrower feedback-only sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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