Meeting Transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: ~3000-char previews in list mode and 10,000-char chunked retrieval with offset-based continuation. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 with zero filler. The default mode (list with previews) is front-loaded before the drill-down behavior and pagination hint, matching how an agent would reason about calling it.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and a fully documented six-parameter schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot express: the mode switch and chunking/pagination model. No output schema exists, but the description's explanation of preview and chunk sizes covers what to expect from returns.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction semantics: transcript_id switches between list and drill-down mode and originates from a prior list call, while offset exists specifically to walk long transcripts. The date-range parameters (start/end/date) are never mentioned in the description and rely entirely on the schema.

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 ('Fetch meeting transcripts from Microsoft Teams') and clearly enumerates the two operating modes (list vs. content drill-down). It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as ms_chat or ms_calendar, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the resource is specific enough that selection 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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: omit transcript_id to list, supply it to drill into content, and use offset to continue through long transcripts. That is clear when-to-use routing within the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer ms_chat or ms_search instead), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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