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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no repeating. The description adds which fields are surfaced (attendees, join link, prep note), but since an output schema exists this partially duplicates structured data and contributes no auth, rate-limit, or edge-case 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: contents and window first, then the intended workflow. No filler, no redundancy, and the affordance an agent needs is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema and rich annotations, this is nearly complete — an agent knows what it returns, the default window, and how to chain into search_meetings. Only the boundary against list_meetings is unaddressed.

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 the single 'hours' parameter is documented there with default and range. The description restates the default (24) but adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (calendar events) with an explicit scope (next N hours, default 24) and enumerates what each item contains: attendees, join link, prep note. An agent can distinguish it from list_meetings by the forward-looking window, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('prepare for a meeting') and gives a concrete follow-up path via search_meetings on a title or attendee. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use list_meetings for past events'), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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