meetings_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' and 'filters,' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' in schema), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on no matches. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though brevity contributes to under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, return format, error handling, or how to use the nested filter structure. For a tool with rich input schema, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 must compensate. It only vaguely references 'specific filters,' which maps to 'filterGroups' but doesn't explain the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify usage or examples.

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 'Search meetings with specific filters' states the basic action (search) and resource (meetings), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'meetings_list' or 'meetings_search' (if it exists in siblings, though not listed). It specifies 'with specific filters' which adds some context but remains generic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meetings_list' (which might list all meetings without filters) or other search tools. The description implies filtering is needed, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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