Get my B2match meetings

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: unfiltered responses include a 'compact availability summary (merged free ranges per day)' unless detail=true, and status filters to one bucket. What detail=true actually adds is only implied, not stated.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the conditional behavior. Each clause carries information the agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 no output schema and a three-parameter tool, the description carries extra burden. It explains the availability-summary behavior and bucket filtering, but never describes the meeting record shape or exactly what detail=true returns, leaving the return contract partially inferred.

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 only 33%, with detail and status documented nowhere in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that status selects a single status bucket and that detail toggles the availability summary in unfiltered responses. That is meaningful added meaning, though the exact effect of detail=true on the returned meeting payload remains unclear.

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 resource ('authenticated meetings') and clarifies the scope is the authenticated user's own meetings. However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like my_schedule or my_availability, and the mention of an 'availability summary' overlaps conceptually with my_availability, which could cause an agent to hesitate between them.

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 description describes what happens when status is absent ('optionally returning one status bucket') but gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings like my_schedule, my_availability, or find_meeting_slots. The agent must infer the decision boundary on its own.

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