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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return composition (phases, stages, reflection groups, reflections, vote/topic/task/comment counts), the __typename discriminator for meeting types, the underlying GraphQL call viewer.meeting(meetingId), and the required MEETINGS_READ permission. For a read tool with no output schema, this is substantial added behavioral context.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, then type-conditional return detail, then implementation/permission notes. Every sentence contributes information, though the GraphQL mapping sentence is denser implementation detail than an agent strictly needs. Appropriately sized overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well, including the retrospective-specific extras and the __typename discriminator. The permission requirement and single required param are covered, leaving little an agent would need before calling it.

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?

There is a single required parameter, meetingId, documented in the schema at 100% coverage. The description does not add format, source, or acquisition guidance (e.g. where to obtain a meetingId), so it does not exceed the schema baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one meeting by id with its phases and stages.' The singular 'one meeting by id' clearly separates it from list_meetings/list_active_meetings siblings, and it further clarifies what a retrospective returns. An agent can identify the tool's exact scope without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Fetch one meeting by id' plus the note about retrospective-specific payloads, which hints at when the extra fields appear. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (list_meetings, list_active_meetings) or states when not to use it. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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