Upcoming meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: result ordering, inclusion/exclusion rules, and an explicit failure mode (needs calendar access; returns available=false with a reason otherwise). That is exactly the context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns and how it is ordered, then usage, then constraints, then the sibling pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; the prompt-phrase examples are slightly padding yet useful for retrieval.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description still covers ordering, filtering, auth failure, and the alternative sibling. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with defaults and caps in the schema, so the description is not required to carry them. It reinforces the time-window concept ("next days") but adds no syntax or interaction detail such as how days and limit interact, so it is close to but not above the baseline-plus level.

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 (list) and resource (the user's calendar meetings) plus scope details: next days, soonest first, each with attendees and the open promises in both directions. It also distinguishes itself from get_next_meeting_brief, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("what's my week", "what do I owe the people I'm meeting"), states eligibility filters (only events with other people or a call link; all-day events excluded), and names the alternative for a narrower need via get_next_meeting_brief.

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