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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool does not create/edit/delete meetings, that a blank query is rejected rather than treated as list-everything, and that it scans at most the 200 most recent synced meetings with `truncated` indicating an incomplete search window. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, the second covers return values, the third gives usage guidance, and the final paragraph covers behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool searches, what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, its safety profile (reinforced by annotations), and important edge-case behaviors (blank query rejection, 200-meeting scan window, truncated flag). The output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described in the description.

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 parameters well. The description adds meaning by clarifying that query is matched as plain text (case-insensitive) and is not a boolean query language, and that limit caps at 25 with a default of 10. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, though the schema already carries most of the weight.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recorded meetings'), and specifies the exact fields matched (titles, notes, action items, participant names, spoken transcript). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_meetings and get_meeting as alternatives, making the tool's scope clear.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user asks what was said, decided, or assigned on a call, or names a person or project in the context of a meeting') and when not to use it ('Do not use to browse the whole archive (list_meetings) or to open a meeting whose id you already have (get_meeting)'). It also notes that ChatGPT clients call the same search as `search`, which helps disambiguate sibling tools.

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