get_speaker_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful scope ('across all meetings') and dependency (need to obtain speaker ID via find_speakers), which are behavioral traits beyond the name. While it doesn't mention return format or safety, the read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the context is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or superfluous detail.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned ('everything... said'), how to get the required input, and the scope. Could mention output ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for a straightforward getter.

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%, with the parameter description already stating to use find_speakers. The tool description repeats this guidance, reinforcing it but adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all contributions from a specific enrolled speaker across all meetings. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('everything a specific enrolled speaker said'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_meeting_transcript by emphasizing 'across all meetings.'

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use find_speakers first to get the speaker ID,' providing a clear prerequisite and directing the user to the appropriate sister tool. It also implies when to use this tool instead of alternatives (when needing cross-meeting speaker aggregation).

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