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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses significant traits: the delegate joins as a named participant, hands decisions back to the user, sends a report afterwards, requires an API key, and returns a session id that can be polled via meeting_status. This goes well beyond a minimal 'sends a delegate to a meeting'. Minor gaps like error behavior or failure handling keep it from a 5.

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 compact and efficient despite its length: it opens with the action label 'DELEGATE', packs the behavioral contract into a sentence, then covers the report, API key, return value, and usage triggers without redundancy. Every sentence contributes practical information.

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 complex live-meeting tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states prerequisites, the delegation flow, the post-meeting report, and how to track progress via meeting_status. It lacks explicit error-handling or preconditions like meeting accessibility, but overall an agent can determine how to invoke and monitor the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful narrative semantics: the brief is 'relays their positions from the brief', questions are 'asks the questions they need answered', and meeting_url is 'a live meeting'. It also points to where the API key can be found. It doesn't elaborate on voice/persona_name/rehearse, but the schema already documents those.

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 opens with 'DELEGATE: send the user's own stand-in into a live meeting they can't attend', giving a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tools. It clearly explains the delegate's behavior (introduces itself, relays the brief, asks questions) and is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 ends with explicit use-case phrases: 'Use when your user says "cover this meeting for me", "I can't make the 3pm", "send someone in my place"' — concrete triggers for selection. It also notes the API key prerequisite and how to follow up via meeting_status. It does not name any alternative tool for when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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