Fellow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches a 'local database', which hints at read-only behavior and potential data freshness limitations, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of meetings with details). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a query with participant filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., meeting IDs, details, or just counts), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., time range, database size). For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('emails' and 'require_all'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain email format requirements, search logic nuances, or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find meetings that included specific participants. Searches the local database.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('meetings'), and scope ('by participants'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_meetings' or 'get_meeting_participants'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_meetings' beyond the participant focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_meetings' or 'get_meeting_participants'. It mentions 'Searches the local database', which implies a local scope but doesn't clarify if other tools might search remote sources or have different filtering capabilities. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.

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