Get my B2match meetings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations don't: unfiltered responses include a compact availability summary (merged free ranges per day) unless detail=true. It stops short of describing result volume, pagination, or what a single meeting record contains.

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 front-loaded sentences: capability and scoping first, output-mode caveat second, sibling routing last. No redundant restatement of annotations or the enum values.

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?

With three simple params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required event context is implied by the domain, the status bucket behavior and the summary-vs-grid switch are explained. Missing is any sense of return volume/pagination or the fields of a meeting or request entry, which matters more given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying parameters to output shape — unfiltered (status omitted) yields an availability summary, and detail=true swaps to the full grid. That cross-parameter behavior is not obvious from the per-field schema text alone.

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 the viewer's meetings and meeting requests) plus a scoping note (optionally one status bucket). It is clearly distinguishable from my_schedule and find_meeting_slots, which are named as different tools for different jobs.

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 to alternatives with conditions: my_schedule for the overall timetable, find_meeting_slots for finding free times with others. That leaves meetings/meeting-requests retrieval as this tool's clear niche.

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