List Zero Meetings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the signed-in user's scope and filter options, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or default limit. This matches the expected baseline given annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, action first, filter options following, with no wasted words. The description is concise while still carrying the key information needed for selection and basic invocation.

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 five-parameter, all-optional listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main filter semantics. The schema supplies after/before definitions and limit bounds, so together they support correct invocation. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit return-format or ordering details, which is minor given the tool's self-descriptive name.

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 only 40%, so the description compensates by linking q to 'title text,' after/before to 'time window,' and referencing status. This adds meaningful semantics for otherwise undocumented parameters. Limit remains unexplained, but its default/min/max in the schema provide mechanical constraints.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the signed-in user's stored meetings.' It also states the optional filtering dimensions. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_transcripts (different resource) and search tools (search vs. list).

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 gives clear context: this tool lists the signed-in user's stored meetings, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the boundary is obvious relative to the sibling list/search tools, so no misleading guidance is present.

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