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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the safety profile, and it does the most important part: 'Nothing changes' declares the call is side-effect free. It omits what the preview actually reports back, but the critical non-destructive trait is stated plainly.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the effect and the non-mutation guarantee front-loaded before the workflow instruction.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavior; it covers safety and ordering but says nothing about what the preview returns or what would be affected by the disconnect, which the agent needs in order to 'show the user'.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Agent id (UUID) — from list_agents'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about the id, which is the expected baseline here.

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+resource: shows the effect of disconnecting Google Meet, i.e., a dry-run preview. The 'preview_' naming plus 'Show what ... would do' distinguishes it from the sibling disconnect_google_meet, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Call first and show the user' gives explicit sequencing guidance (use this before the real disconnect, and surface results to a human). It stops short of an explicit 'do not call disconnect_google_meet without running this first' exclusion.

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