list_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that: only transcribed meetings are included, which is a meaningful scope constraint. It is silent on pagination and ordering for what could be a large list, so it does not go far beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the scope and return fields followed by the follow-up action. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description supplies the essential scope ('transcribed meetings') and the next-step pointer. Ordering/pagination behavior is the only notable omission.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter-related information is missing.

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 names the specific verb+resource ('Every transcribed meeting') and enumerates the returned fields (id, length, turn count, speaker count), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by implying no filtering ('Every') and by naming get_transcript as the follow-up, but it never contrasts directly with search_transcripts.

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?

The only guidance is a chaining hint ('Use the id with get_transcript'), which tells the agent what to do next with the output but not when to choose this tool over search_transcripts. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, though listing-all vs searching is implied by 'Every'.

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