Get B2match meeting recommendations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are personalized to the logged-in viewer and ranked as 'recommended and newest', which tells the agent the output is opinionated rather than a plain listing. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination.

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 sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded before the sibling routing. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the essence of the return ('recommended and newest participants'), which is enough to know what comes back. It doesn't say whether the list is bounded or paginated, a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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?

Only one parameter ('event') and schema description coverage is 100%, with accepted formats (URL, slug/euid, numeric id) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (fetch) and a precisely scoped resource: recommended and newest participants for the logged-in viewer. The viewer-scoping and the recommendation ordering distinguish it clearly from list_participants without needing to open either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_participants to search all participants, find_meeting_slots to check shared free time. This names the alternatives and the tasks they cover, so an agent knows which tool to reach for.

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