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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral nuance — the summary is built over a chunked map rather than a single raw pass, and actionables are excluded — but says nothing about transcript size, cost, permissions, or ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer ('Un recap entero: la transcripción completa y el resumen'), then a short explanation of summary construction and the exclusion. Slightly verbose on the chunked-map rationale, but every sentence carries some signal.

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 steps in to say what is returned (transcript + summary) and what is not (actionables). For a simple 2-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, though it could clarify transcript pagination or size.

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% and both parameters (meeting_id, workspace_id) are documented in the schema, including the omit-to-search-all-workspaces behavior. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the full recap of a meeting — complete transcript plus summary. It also differentiates from the actionables tool by explicitly excluding accionables and noting they are a separate, living list with their own tool, so an agent can distinguish the two.

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?

Implies the boundary with get_meeting_actionables ('no incluye los accionables... tienen su propia tool'), which is genuine routing guidance. However it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_meetings (list) or update_meeting, so usage is only partially implied.

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