list_meetings

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly focuses on traits beyond that: it discloses the feed-derived source of truth, that rescheduled meetings surface their latest time, and that results are sorted by start. Pagination and volume limits are not disclosed, keeping it short of a 5.

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, densely packed with resource scope, return fields, freshness semantics and sort order, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies return fields, ordering and freshness semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing pagination/result-count behavior keeps it from perfect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (origin, workspace_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an implicit workspace scoping notion and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Names the concrete resource ('meetings the vendor has scheduled in a workspace'), enumerates the sub-types it covers (consultations, Zoom calls, walkthroughs), and lists the returned fields. No sibling tool covers meetings, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the workspace scoping and the note that data comes from the workspace feed, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what happens if workspace_id is unknown. With no competing meeting tool the gap is minor, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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