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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (default and max count, offset), ranking semantics (order_by ranks within the window), and a significant data-quality caveat about participant placeholders. This is substantial behavioral context an agent needs before trusting results.

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?

Three sentences carry the main purpose, returned fields, pagination, ordering, and a critical participant-label caveat with no filler. The statement is front-loaded with purpose and ends with the most important interpretive warning.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the key operational details: result shape, pagination, sorting, and the participant-name caveat. An agent has enough context to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds useful clarifications: order_by ranks within the window, offset should use the response's next_offset, and participant_names only match stored tagged names, not placeholders. These clarifications go beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource ('List recordings by time window / participants') and defines the scope as metadata only, listing exact fields and excluding content. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_conversations or search_recordings, so it misses the top level of distinction.

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 `[metadata_query]` tag and the explicit '(no content)' phrase give a clear context for when this tool is appropriate: metadata-only listing by time window or participants. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so full when/when-not guidance is absent.

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