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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: ownership and completion filters, the 20-item cap, returned locations/summaries/destinations/cursors, and the permission context for the follow-up review tool. It does not explain cursor lifecycle or pagination behavior in detail.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: the filtering scope comes first, followed by return contents and the downstream workflow. Every sentence carries useful selection or invocation context without repetition.

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?

The annotations and output schema reduce the burden, and the description covers purpose, return categories, and workflow context. However, with four undocumented input parameters and ambiguous cursor parameters, it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'up to 20' for limit and that cursors are returned, but it never explains the semantics of cursor, projectCursor, or workspaceCursor beyond a vague reference to cursors.

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: finds own, finished recordings with no project or workspace, capped at 20. It also distinguishes the result set from the sibling review_recording_assignments by naming it as the downstream consumer.

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 a clear usage scenario ('meine Sitzungen aufräumen') and explicitly says the results are input for review_recording_assignments, including the relevant permission condition. It does not, however, contrast this tool with list_recordings or search_recordings when those might also seem relevant.

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