Summarize the review queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: bounded result size ('newest few'), field-level disclosure limits (lead names and hot-lead flags, no draft text), relative cost, required OAuth scope/data sensitivity, and the environment-configured default workspace.

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 leading sentence front-loads the payload shape and the cost comparison in two tight clauses. The trailing block (endpoint, scopes, idempotency) is structured but partly redundant with annotations, which already state idempotency and read-only behavior.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, cost, auth and workspace defaults. What is missing is how the two workspace override parameters interact when both are supplied, a minor gap for a 2-param read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the workspace parameters override a default workspace configured by the environment, which explains the zero-required-parameter design. It does not clarify precedence between workspaceId and workspaceSlug.

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 (read count of pending drafts plus newest few) and enumerates exactly what is and isn't included (lead names, hot-lead flags, no draft text). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling luca_review_queue_list by framing itself as 'cheaper than listing the queue.'

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?

'Cheaper than listing the queue' plus the 'no draft text' constraint gives the agent a clear alternative and cost tradeoff, effectively routing bulk/inspection work to luca_review_queue_list. It stops short of an explicit 'use list instead when you need X' statement, so it is clear context rather than full exclusions.

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