Get Meeting Brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it looks up a specific calendar, fans out attendee research in parallel, and composes a brief card. It omits latency/cost expectations (parallel research implies a slow, expensive call) and any calendar-permission requirements, but the read-only, non-mutating character is clear from 'generate'/'look up'/'researches'.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then mechanism, then a tight bulleted list of what the brief contains. Efficient overall, though the output bullets partially duplicate a return shape that an output schema already covers.

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 3-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing high-level picture: what is researched, in what manner, and what the resulting brief looks like. The main remaining hole is selection guidance among the many overlapping brief/meeting siblings.

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 already documents meeting_id, hours_ahead, and meeting_title, including the priority rule for meeting_id. The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters, so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a full pre-meeting intelligence brief for a single meeting') and the single-meeting scope implicitly separates it from brief_all_today. However, no sibling is named, so it is not self-evidently distinct from the near-identical brief_with_history in the sibling list.

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?

'Pre-meeting' implies the timing context, and naming Google Calendar as the source implies the Outlook siblings (get_outlook_brief) are the alternative for other calendars. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing against brief_with_history or brief_all_today, which overlap heavily with this tool.

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