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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses ordering (newest first), the full per-item payload, and a non-obvious access rule — 'Secret notes show their title only' — which is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat annotations would otherwise supply. It omits auth/scope expectations and doesn't mention that results are capped (the limit max of 50 lives only in the schema).

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return shape, then filter semantics, then next-step routing — a sensible order. The telegraphic style ('minutes, people, a one-line summary...') is dense but readable. Slightly over-packed into two long clauses, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating every returned field, so an agent knows the shape of results without guessing. With 6 optional params, no required inputs, and no annotations, the only thing an agent still needs is pagination behavior, which the schema's limit description covers.

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 67%, and the description fills the biggest gaps: 'query' and 'person' have no schema descriptions at all, yet the text defines query as matching words in title, people or note (all required) and person as someone in the call's people or a speaker list. from/to are restated with the 'user's day' nuance already in the schema. 'limit' and 'workspace' are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 states the resource precisely — the user's recorded calls (meeting notes) — and enumerates exactly what each row contains (id, title, date/time, minutes, people, summary, transcript line count, follow-up states). It distinguishes itself from get_note, get_transcript and followups_list by naming them as follow-ups. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the 'newest first' collection framing makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Read one with get_note or get_transcript, its follow-ups with followups_list,' which tells the caller this tool is an index, not a content fetch. The filter clauses (from/to, person, query) imply when each filter applies. It does not contrast with search_notes or search_transcripts, which are the closest siblings, so there is no 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.