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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: the listing is key-scoped and restricted to currently running meetings, and each entry includes a participant count. It stops short of stating what identifying fields are returned (e.g. meeting IDs) or whether results are capped.

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 sentence with the verb and the scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for describing the return shape. It gives the participant count but not the identifier an agent would need to feed into join_meeting, hand_off, or get_transcript, leaving a gap for a list tool whose whole purpose is to yield follow-up handles.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a no-argument listing rather than hinting at filters that do not exist.

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?

A specific verb (List) plus resource (meetings) with an explicit scope: only meetings 'this key started' that are 'still running.' That scope naturally separates it from list_recordings (past recordings) and join_meeting/start_meeting (session actions) without having to name them.

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 'still running' qualifier implies the tool is for checking active sessions rather than history, which loosely points an agent toward list_recordings for past data. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion or precondition is stated, so the routing is inferred rather than instructed.

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