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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, cursor direction semantics for before/after, default page behavior, and the MEETINGS_READ auth requirement.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences; the required-parameter fact comes early and every clause carries information (scope, ordering, defaults, pagination, auth). No filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: required arg, defaults, pagination direction, ordering, and permission requirement. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds value by framing before/after as an upper-bound/cursor pair that walks the window backwards and by confirming teamIds is required and meetingTypes defaults to all four — adding relational meaning over isolated field docs.

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+resource ('List past/ongoing meetings') with scope ('for one or more teams'), ordering ('newest first'), and backing API (viewer.meetings). The 'past/ongoing' framing distinguishes it from the sibling list_active_meetings and from get_meeting, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear operational context: teamIds is required, meetingTypes defaults to all four, before defaults to now, and after paginates older. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer list_active_meetings or get_meeting, so no explicit alternatives/when-not guidance.

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