Search Meeting History

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden, and it does add meaningful mechanism context (FTS5 full-text search) and lists the indexed surface (titles, attendees, summaries, action items, outcomes). It stops short of disclosing pagination/limit behavior or how relevance/ranking works, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action before elaborating on fields and mechanism. Efficient with little waste, though the FTS5 implementation detail is arguably more developer-facing than agent-facing.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, queryable fields, and search mechanism. The one gap is sibling differentiation against get_person_history, whose name overlaps heavily with this tool's purpose.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema; baseline is 3. The 'Query by person name, company name, topic, decision, or date' line adds slight meaning to the query parameter but no syntax or format guidance 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Search your past meeting history') and enumerates the fields that can be queried. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling get_person_history, which also seems to retrieve past interactions with a person, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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 examples of queryable dimensions (person, company, topic, decision, date) imply usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no mention of alternatives like get_person_history or research_attendee when the target is a specific person.

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