search_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral traits. It implies read-only functionality through the search action but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects.

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 structured as a clear docstring with a purpose sentence, parameter list, and return statement. It is appropriately sized for 5 parameters, but could be slightly more concise by removing the 'ctx' mention not in schema.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers the basics but lacks differentiation from siblings and details like pagination or empty results handling. The return description is minimal, but the output schema mitigates this.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains all schema parameters (query, limit, date_from, date_to, attendee) beyond their names, adding meaning like defaults and format expectations. This adds significant value.

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 tool searches meeting notes by keyword, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_person', which also searches but by person. This lack of distinction prevents a 5.

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 implies usage for keyword searches but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_meetings' or 'search_by_person'. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are included.

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