Next meeting brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the empty-state behavior ('returns available=false with a reason') and the data provenance ('built from the calendar and recorded meetings'). It stops short of describing freshness or latency, hence a 4.

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 tight sentences: purpose, edge-case behavior, then the when-to-use/alternative routing. The core intent is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still covers the notable empty case. For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 (prep) and resource (next calendar meeting) and enumerates exactly what it returns: attendees, mutual promises, and last-discussed content. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_meeting and search_meetings, which handle past meetings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before a call' and routes the agent away with 'for a meeting that already happened use search_meetings and get_meeting.' Both the use case and the alternative are named, so nothing is left to inference.

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