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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the host-only authorization constraint and by stating which fields are deliberately withheld (emails, media tokens). It does not cover ordering, empty-room behavior, or errors, which keeps it at 4.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the field-exclusion note immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, host restriction, and return shape (names only). Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior for an empty or non-hosted room, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single required roomId, so the description must compensate. "A meeting room you host" gives context about which room is meant but never names the roomId argument or its format, leaving the mapping to inference.

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 and resource (display names of people in a meeting room) plus a scoping condition ("you host"), which separates it from siblings like list_my_meeting_rooms and mute_participant. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls 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 phrase "in a meeting room you host" implies the context of use (you must be the host) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives such as join_meeting_room or list_my_meeting_rooms. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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