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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds ordering (newest first), paging via next_cursor, and the fact that returned ids feed get_meeting/get_transcript. That paging/ordering behavior is genuinely useful context not present in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape; the filter options and return/paging info follow without redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and full schema description coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: ordering, paging contract, and cross-references to list_folders, get_meeting, and get_transcript.

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 six parameters including ISO formats, defaults, and the cursor definition. The description only summarizes the filter dimensions (date window, folder, tag), adding limited meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb (List) and resource (user's recorded meetings) with scope and ordering (newest first), immediately separating it from get_meeting and search_meetings, which return one meeting or perform text search. An agent can choose it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection context: filter by ISO date window, folder (with a cross-reference to list_folders for ids) or tag, and points to get_meeting/get_transcript as the follow-up calls. It does not state when to prefer search_meetings over this tool, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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