search_meetings

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the burden, and it does well: it names the searched fields, states that transcripts are intentionally excluded, and reveals the result is 'ranked results with snippets' — a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not explicitly say read-only, but 'search' and 'returns' inherently imply a non-destructive operation.

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: it opens with the action and scope, then notes the important transcript exception, then closes with the return format. No filler or redundant words.

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-style search tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete: field scope, exclusions, and return format, with query details in the schema. A small improvement would be to explicitly mention when to use list_meetings for unfiltered listing, but it is not essential.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning by identifying the exact fields that the query is matched against, which the schema leaves generic as 'searched fields'. The schema details query syntax and defaults, so the two together fully cover parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('meetings') and enumerates the searchable fields: summary text, name, action items, and decisions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_meeting by stating transcripts are excluded. This makes the tool's exact scope clear.

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?

It explicitly tells an agent not to use this tool for transcripts and routes them to get_meeting instead, which is a strong when-not-to-use signal. It does not directly contrast with list_meetings, but the 'search' framing implies free-text query for filtering rather than plain listing.

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