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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose read-only semantics and a connection prerequisite. It doesn't explain error behavior or output format, but for a simple read-only list this is adequate with gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, no filler. The description is appropriately compact.

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 tool is simple, but no output schema exists and the only required parameter is completely undocumented. The description should at least clarify the id parameter and ideally the return shape, so the definition is not complete enough.

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?

The schema has a required 'id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%; the description never says what 'id' refers to (agent id? meeting id?). This is a critical gap because the agent cannot know what value to supply.

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 names a specific resource ('Google Meet meetings'), a clear action ('list'), and a scope ('booked by this agent'), which distinguishes it from generic calendar tools like crm_list_calendar_events. The read-only qualifier also signals a safe lookup.

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 prerequisite: Google Meet must be connected first. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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