List meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior (despite after/before cursors), default state/period behavior, or result ordering semantics, leaving the schema to carry the full behavioral burden.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the filter list. Efficient, though the filter enumeration is a light restatement of the schema rather than new information.

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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary filtering concept but omits pagination flow and what a result contains. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent driving multi-page listing.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning by clarifying that period takes upcoming/past/fixed and that a fixed period implies a date range, but it ignores attendance, limit, and the cursor parameters entirely.

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 ('List scheduled meetings') and immediately names the filter axes, which separates it from single-event siblings like get_event. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from find_available_slots or list_scheduling_links, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 enumerates capabilities but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to reach for list_events versus find_available_slots or get_event.

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