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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds real context beyond them: no new summary is generated or charged, missing summaries and uncertain freshness are reported in the result, and a separate summary permission is required and only obtainable by reconnecting Kalima. These are exactly the facts that change agent behavior.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then scope limit, then behavioral caveats, then permission need. Every sentence earns its place, though the embedded example quote is slightly awkward mid-sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the permission, staleness and no-charge behaviors are covered. The remaining gap is how to obtain valid sessionIds, which neither schema nor description explains.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: the 'up to 20' limit maps to maxItems and hints at batching, but nothing explains that sessionIds are UUIDs of the user's recordings or where to get them (list_recordings). Baseline 3 given one simple parameter with a strong pattern/maxItems constraint in the schema.

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 (reads) and resource (saved AI summaries of the user's own recordings), with a concrete example query that pins down the intent. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_transcript, so the agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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 the natural-language use case and names get_transcript as the alternative for full text. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion (e.g., for recordings without a summary or for raw text search), so it stops just 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.