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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: one card per meeting, native pagination with no total, previews that may be absent and are not timestamp evidence, and relevance lag with matches across untimed boundaries. These are genuine operational caveats an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the caveat lines are terse fragments that read as internal jargon ('do not establish timestamps', 'match across untimed boundaries') and are hard to parse. Size is reasonable; clarity of the later sentences is not.

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 10 parameters at 20% description coverage and an output schema present, the description correctly focuses on search semantics rather than return shape. Still, the many undocumented filter parameters and the absence of any sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for a moderately complex search tool.

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 only 20% – just query and cursor carry descriptions. The description touches the source parameter tangentially ('Source transcripts...'), but leaves topic, category_tag, government_id, government_ids, start_date, end_date, and limit entirely unexplained in both places. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Search public meetings once across metadata and stored transcript text.' That is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings search_meetings_semantic and search_meeting_transcript, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives guidance. The closest thing is an oblique line, 'Source transcripts searches stored text, including meetings without timed proof,' which hints at a mode but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over search_meetings_semantic or search_meeting_transcript.

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