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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool returns job state plus next_poll_after_seconds, which tells the agent how to pace polling rather than hammering the endpoint. It does not cover failure/expiry behavior of jobs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the use case before the return details. The final sentence about minutes_markdown partially duplicates what the output schema already provides, but it usefully signals that a completed job yields the minutes directly without a follow-up call.

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, return values need not be re-explained, and the description correctly focuses on the polling workflow and next_poll_after_seconds. The main remaining gap is not telling the agent where job_id comes from, which matters for a tool whose only input is that id.

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?

Only one parameter, job_id, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. "By its id" gives the parameter meaning, but it never says where that id originates (e.g., returned by meetnotes_export_meeting or meetnotes_invite_notetaker) or what format it takes. Minimum viable.

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 (check status) and resource (a job by id), and enumerates the job types it covers (export, notetaker invitation, meeting/recording still processing). This clearly separates it from siblings like meetnotes_list_recordings, meetnotes_get_transcript, or fetch, which return content rather than async job state.

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?

"Use this to check on ... something that is still processing" gives a clear trigger condition: pending async work. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the condition is unambiguous enough that an agent can route correctly.

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