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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: it discloses that include_transcript may return a long transcript and that a missing meeting yields an error object. These details go beyond the schema and annotations, though they are modest in scope.

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?

Two tight sentences lead with the core purpose and then state the optional behavior and error case. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with fully described parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the optional transcript flag, and the failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents meeting_id and include_transcript. The description adds value by explaining the transcript use case and the not-found error, but it does not need to do more given the complete 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a single meeting's summary, topics, attendees, and optionally the transcript. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that search or list meetings, and the singular 'single meeting' avoids confusion with bulk operations.

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 communicates the main use case—retrieving one meeting's full details—and explains when to set include_transcript=true. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the single-meeting framing plus the schema note that meeting_id comes from a search/list tool provides clear contextual guidance.

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