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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful context about what formats are (e.g., language tags) and the mapping purpose, but does not disclose behaviors like default language handling, whether unused formats are excluded by default, or return structure. This is moderate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence. It starts with the action and resource, includes concrete examples for clarity, and ends with a purpose clause. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 list tool with no output schema and only optional parameters, the description is adequate: it clarifies the purpose and gives examples. It could mention that the response contains format objects with IDs, but the purpose clause implies this. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already explains each parameter clearly. The description adds little beyond tying 'language tags' to the language parameter and 'human-friendly format names' to key_strings, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('available meeting formats'), with concrete examples (Open, Closed, Speaker, Beginners, language tags) and a clear purpose: mapping human-friendly format names to BMLT format IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools that focus on meetings, server info, etc.

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 a clear use case: 'so the caller can map human-friendly format names to BMLT format IDs.' While no alternative tools for formats exist among siblings, the context is sufficient. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose statement makes the primary usage obvious.

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