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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by stating the required authorization scopes and the resolver path behind the call. It does not describe pagination or ordering of the returned list, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences: the purpose and scope come first, then the backing resolver and required scopes. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and authorization adequately. Minor gaps remain around return shape (empty list vs error) and ordering, but annotations cover the safety burden.

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% for the single teamId parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or sourcing detail about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('List'), resource ('meetings'), and an explicit scope qualifier ('currently-active (in-progress)') that separates it from the sibling list_meetings. It even names the underlying GraphQL resolver path, so an agent knows exactly what is being fetched.

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 the scope ('active/in-progress'), and the required scopes (TEAMS_READ + MEETINGS_READ) are a genuine prerequisite signal. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_meetings or get_meeting, nor any exclusion.

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