Get meeting

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the shape of the returned payload and the meaning of the four source status values, including the gating rule that transcripts require 'done'. It omits error behavior for an unknown/invalid id and any permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The retrieval scope is front-loaded and the status/transcript caveat follows as a tight second sentence.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return payload itself and the status enum. Only the failure mode for a nonexistent id is unaddressed.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents notebook_id and its provenance ('as returned by list_notebooks'). The description adds no format, validation, or id-sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get one meeting by id') and enumerates the payload (sources with their fields, plus the generated note), which clearly separates it from the sibling list_notebooks. An agent knows exactly which tool retrieves a single meeting vs. enumerating them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you fetch by id, and the note about transcripts only being available when a source is 'done' implies a polling/wait condition. It never names alternatives (get_transcript, chat_with_sources) or says when not to call it, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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