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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: results are ordered newest first and include processing state plus the meeting id consumed by downstream tools, which helps an agent chain calls. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, but a good chunk of the behavioral burden is met.

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?

A single dense sentence that leads with the usage triggers, then states scope, ordering, and returned fields. No filler, no restating of the title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers usage, scope, and ordering well. The only real gap is pagination/continuation semantics for cursor, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 50% — query and page_size are documented, cursor and created_after are not. The description only implicitly maps 'find one by title or date' onto query/created_after and adds no syntax or format guidance, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is apt.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Lists the connected user's own recordings'), and adds scope details ('newest first, with processing state and the meeting id other tools take') that let an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like search or fetch. The scoping to the connected user's own recordings is a meaningful differentiator.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers: recent/latest/past meetings, finding one by title or date, or checking processing status. What's missing is a negative boundary — a sibling named 'search' exists, and the description never says when to prefer that over this list tool, leaving overlap unresolved.

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