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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only." Beyond that it adds real context annotations cannot convey: the source system (Fireflies), that the payload is metadata-only and never contains spoken content, and an epistemic caveat against inferring agreements. Missing are behavioral facts like pagination behavior against maxResults or what the connectionId wrapper scopes.

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-loads the resource and the returned fields, then the index-vs-content distinction, then the caution. Five short sentences with almost no filler; the one arguable redundancy is restating read-only already present in annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. But for a 7-parameter, zero-required listing tool with nested objects, the description omits the date-range and query filter semantics that determine which meetings come back — a meaningful gap an agent would hit immediately.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It mentions only "Pass your agent_name" — and even that uses a snake_case spelling that doesn't match the schema's agentName, a real ambiguity. Filters (from/to, query, companyId, maxResults, connectionId) are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ("Lists recorded meetings from the company's connected transcript source (Fireflies)") and enumerates the returned fields: title, time, duration, organizer, attendees. It explicitly separates itself from its nearest sibling by declaring itself "the index" and routing content retrieval to GetConnectedTranscript.

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 explicit two-step guidance: "find the meeting here and call GetConnectedTranscript for its words," plus a caution that existence of a recording is not evidence of agreement. It does not, however, address how it relates to the many other list tools (connection_list_connected_events, connection_list_luma_events, connection_get_connected_transcript's direct-ID path), so the routing logic among siblings is only partially covered.

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