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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot convey: the text is generated from the public website, names its source pages, and touches no user meeting data. Only return-format detail is absent, and an output schema exists to cover that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then scope, then provenance. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or 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?

For a single optional enum parameter with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and where the data comes from.

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 enum values are self-explanatory, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reframing the topics as natural-language user questions, helping the agent map a query to the right topic value rather than reading the enum cold.

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+resource ('Facts about the product' for MeetNotes itself) and scopes it as product-information retrieval, which cleanly separates it from every sibling that deals with the user's meetings, recordings, or transcripts.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks about MeetNotes itself') and enumerates the question types that qualify (cost, platforms, notetaker, comparison, privacy, languages). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating a when-not-to-use, but the boundary is clear from 'Reads nothing from the user's meetings.'

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