meet_v2_list_transcript_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API version ('v2 GA') and that entries are 'individual speech segments', but doesn't describe pagination behavior (despite having a page_size parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that front-loads key information (API version, action, resource). The bracketed API version note is slightly distracting but not wasteful. Every element serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a listing operation with pagination behavior implied by the page_size parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (structure of entries), how pagination works, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like format examples for transcript_name or typical page_size values). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 action ('List') and resource ('transcript entries') with additional context about the API version and that entries are 'individual speech segments'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'meet_v2_get_transcript' by specifying list vs get operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'meet_v2_list_transcripts' (which lists transcripts rather than entries).

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a transcript first), comparison to other listing tools, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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