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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes further by disclosing the default ordering, the returned fields (title, start time, duration), and the important caveat that no end time exists so callers must derive it from startedAt plus durationMs. Minor gap: it doesn't mention pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter is documented in the schema.

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?

Purpose and default ordering are front-loaded, and each sentence carries useful information (examples, return shape, limit/sort advice). The multilingual example strings are slightly indulgent but demonstrate natural query shape, so they mostly earn their 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?

Given 16 optional parameters, a rich schema, and an existing output schema, the description covers what matters most: default ordering, how to size the request, and the missing-end-time caveat. It does not indicate when to route to search_recordings or find_unassigned_recordings instead, which is the main residual gap.

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 94%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real guidance for limit and for sort ("oldest" finds the first, default newest), but leaves the other sort enum values (longest, shortest, name) and all 13 filter parameters to 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 and resource ("Lists the recordings in the user's Kalima account") plus the scope of content types covered and the default order (newest first). It does not name sibling tools like search_recordings or find_unassigned_recordings, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation against them.

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?

"Answers questions such as 'my last meeting'..." and "Set limit to what the question needs, e.g. 1 for the latest recording. sort 'oldest' finds the first" give concrete when-to-use guidance tied to limit/sort choices. What's missing is any exclusion or pointer to the alternative tools when a keyword search is actually required.

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