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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are newest-first, a single fetch includes live status and quota consumption, and it mirrors GET /api/v1/meetings. It omits pagination/limit behavior for the list mode.

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 front-loaded sentence packs both modes and the quota side-effect with no filler, though it is dense and could be split for easier parsing by an agent. Every clause earns its place.

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-value structure need not be explained, and the description covers both invocation modes plus quota context. What's missing is list-mode behavior (count, pagination, date bounds) that an agent might need to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the multi-business condition for business_id. The description restates the list-vs-single mode but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list meetings / get one meeting by id) and enumerates what the single-meeting mode returns: live status, minutes used, summary, and plan's remaining minutes. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like join_meeting, leave_meeting, and get_transcript.

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?

The description explains the two modes and the condition that selects them ('omit to list recent meetings'), and the schema reinforces that id is optional. It does not name alternative tools for adjacent needs (e.g., transcripts), so it stops short of a 5.

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