get_meeting_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions what's retrieved (summary and metadata) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The example shows parameter usage but lacks behavioral details.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences and an example. The first sentence clearly states purpose and scope, and the example demonstrates usage. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the example more clearly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, and relatively simple functionality, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope, and provides an example. The main gap is lack of behavioral context, but the output schema mitigates some of this.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'recording_id' as 'The recording identifier' with type integer. The description adds marginal value through the example showing usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comprehensive meeting details', specifying what's included (summary and metadata) and excluded (transcript). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_meeting_transcript' by explicitly mentioning 'without transcript', but doesn't fully differentiate from 'search_meetings' which might also retrieve details.

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 implies usage by specifying 'without transcript' and providing an example with recording_id, suggesting this is for retrieving details of a specific meeting when you have its ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'list_meetings' or 'search_meetings', nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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