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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches both summaries and full transcripts, and returns each matching meeting with an excerpt around the match. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does without overstating safety guarantees.

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 description is three tight sentences: purpose first, then mechanics, then usage guidance and routing to a sibling. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, example use cases, and when to use an alternative. With no output schema, describing the excerpt behavior is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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 already documents both query and limit. The description adds examples like product and number for the query, but it does not materially change parameter meaning; it mostly restates what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching across the user's Granola meetings. It distinguishes the search scope (summaries and full transcripts) and the result shape (matching meetings with excerpts), which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_granola_notes.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when did we discuss X' and 'what did she say about Y'. It also names the alternative tool, get_granola_notes, with a clear condition for when to use it instead: to browse by date.

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