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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that q performs full-text matching against titles, transcripts, agendas, packets, and minutes, which is meaningful search behavior. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the core query semantics are transparent.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then packs the exact search fields into the remaining clause. It contains no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core object and search surface. However, it omits how results are paged/returned and does not disambiguate from search_transcripts, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding and invoking 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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains q's semantics in detail and implies market_slug through the 'in a market' scoping, but page is left entirely to the schema and q's optional/default behavior is not described.

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 identifies the resource as meetings scoped to a market and specifies exactly which text fields q matches (title, transcript, agendas, packets, minutes). It is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search_transcripts.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_transcripts or meeting. The only implied context is that it searches meeting documents in a market, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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