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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new context: the ordering of results (newest first), the scope filter (only meetings Kai was sent into), and the extra payload returned in single-meeting mode. It does not mention pagination limits or auth/permission requirements for the business_id scoping.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the list mode and then the single-record mode, with no filler or repetition of the title. It is tightly packed but the trailing 'plus the plan's remaining meeting minutes' clause is slightly appended rather than integrated, keeping it just under ideal.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, a complete parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to choose it: the two modes, ordering, and the returned status/minutes fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as list-mode result limits and any permission conditions tied to business_id.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions, including the omit-id-to-list hint and the multi-business token condition. The description reinforces the id semantics by framing the two modes but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete resource (meetings) and two distinct modes: listing the meetings Kai was sent into, newest first, or fetching a single meeting by id with its live status, minutes used and summary. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. join_meeting/leave_meeting) to contrast the read-only listing with the action tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the structure: omit id to list, supply id to fetch one, and the trailing 'plan's remaining meeting minutes this month' hints at the billing/usage-check use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related tasks such as joining a meeting.

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