Read the scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: required scopes (reports:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', the underlying GET endpoint, and that an idempotency key is not required.

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 purpose and metric list, followed by compact metadata lines. Minor redundancy between the scope line and the operation line, but nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers purpose, auth, and workspace selection. The dangling reference to a 'window' with no corresponding parameter is the only small ambiguity.

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% and both params are already self-documented as optional workspace overrides; the description's restatement of the override behavior only marginally extends the schema by naming the 'default workspace configured by environment' as the fallback. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (Read) and resource (sales scorecard) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (calls booked/completed, show rate, won/lost, draft approvals, hours saved), so the agent knows precisely what it produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbor report tools like luca_reports_morning or luca_morning_report.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment'), but gives no when-to-use guidance versus the many analytics/report siblings, and never explains how the 'window' is defined given there is no date parameter.

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