search_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains fuzzy matching (handling partial matches, plurals, case-insensitivity), performance optimization (default transcript exclusion), pagination (fetches all meetings with pagination), and result filtering (returns matching meetings). It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on behavior and examples. Every sentence adds value, though the examples section could be slightly more concise, as they reiterate points already made in the description.

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's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, usage, key behaviors, and parameters, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'query' searches across specific metadata fields (titles, attendees, teams, topics, summaries) and optionally transcripts, and it provides examples of usage, but it doesn't significantly expand beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific action ('search meetings by keyword') and resources ('metadata fields and optionally transcripts'), with explicit differentiation from siblings like 'list_meetings' (which lacks search) and 'get_meeting_details'/'get_meeting_transcript' (which fetch specific meetings rather than searching).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies that transcripts are excluded by default for performance, recommends 'include_transcript=True' for transcript searches, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing its search capability across metadata and optional transcripts.

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