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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond the annotations: results are limited to upcoming meetings unless 'all' is set, and records are signed. It says nothing about ordering, limits, or pagination.

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 compact sentences with no waste, and the default-scope behavior leads. The parenthetical about 'your AI or a person's AIs' is slightly convoluted but earns its place by clarifying whose meetings are returned.

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 read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, subject, and the opt-in for historical records. Return shape and ordering are left unspecified but are not required 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 coverage is 100% with a single boolean, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'all: include past and called-off ones' restates the schema text rather than adding format or edge-case detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the ... meetings') and scopes it to those booked or agreed through meet, which separates it from meet, meet_rules, and list_approvals/list_messages. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 default scope ('upcoming') and the expansion path ('all: include past and called-off ones') are implied clearly enough to call the tool correctly. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to a sibling for other views.

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