list_meetings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: inclusive date handling, large result counts, cancelled meetings remaining in results with a 'cancelled' flag, the free-text nature of 'time', and the limit cap. This goes well beyond a generic listing description, though it does not mention permissions or read-only guarantees.

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 dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose and no filler. Every sentence serves a purpose: constraints, parameter explanations, and behavioral notes are all packed efficiently. Backticks and examples improve readability without bloating length.

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?

The description is thorough for a list tool with no output schema and no annotations. It explains core behaviors, response hints (cancelled flag, time field), and important constraints. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'meeting_type' parameter companions, which could affect how an agent decides to filter results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters itself. It covers start_date/end_date (format, inclusiveness), committee (number or name), chamber (disambiguation), limit (cap), and offset (paging). However, it does not explain the 'meeting_type' parameter at all, even though the schema enum gives some clue. The description also adds useful output-field context ('time', 'cancelled') beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('meetings on the master schedule') and the operation (listing within a date range), and mentions the scope ('committees, floor, caucuses'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_bills or list_committees by the 'master schedule' wording, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 concrete usage context: date format and inclusive range, a warning to keep ranges short due to volume, committee name/number filtering, chamber disambiguation, and pagination behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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