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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming required permissions (TEAMS_READ + MEETINGS_READ) and the GraphQL endpoint. It doesn't describe return shape or pagination, but the annotation lowers the burden on the description.

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?

The description is three short, purposeful statements: what it does, the underlying GraphQL query, and required permissions. No filler words; the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter list operation, the description covers purpose, operation source, and permissions. There is no output schema, but the description is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call this tool correctly.

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%, with the single parameter teamId documented as 'The team id.' The description doesn't add extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List a team's currently-active (in-progress) meetings.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_meetings and get_meeting by explicitly limiting scope to active meetings. The embedded GraphQL path further clarifies exactly what operation is performed.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a team's currently-active meetings are needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'currently-active (in-progress)' qualifier makes the use case unambiguous relative to siblings like list_meetings.

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