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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by stating that filters are 'combined with AND' and that pagination is available via 'limit/offset'. It also transparently notes that 'summary_notes is not returned here; fetch via v1GetMeeting', which is important behavioral context. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the search scope is limited to meetings the caller participates in, but that is implied. Given the strong annotations, the description adds sufficient extra context.

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 description is efficiently structured into two paragraphs. The first paragraph is a clear, front-loaded usage guide with alternatives and workflow hints. The second paragraph systematically lists all filters with their formats and behaviors. Every sentence provides unique value, with no redundancy or wasted words. The structure is logical and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, pagination, AND logic, no output schema for return values), the description is complete. It covers the search scope, filter semantics, pagination, a notable omission ('summary_notes'), and a crucial workflow hint for resolving names to emails. The output schema is present, so return value details are not needed. No gaps are apparent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the logical combination of filters (AND), providing concrete examples of acceptable values for status ('scheduled or completed'), and clarifying the format for date parameters ('ISO 8601 with timezone'). It also groups parameters conceptually (e.g., listing filters together). However, it doesn't add syntax or detailed format for every parameter beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user gives keyword, date, participant, or status criteria.' It also gives clear alternatives: 'use listMeetings for plain browsing or listUpcomingMeetings for the next scheduled ones.' Additionally, it offers a workflow hint: 'If the user only has a name or initials, use listMeetingContacts... to resolve the email first, then search by participant_emails.' This is exceptional usage guidance.

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