fathom_list_recent_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, result ordering, returned fields, and a major limitation (no title/keyword search). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the core safety and behavioral traits are clearly 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?

The description is two sentences: a concise functional overview with return fields, and a practical usage note with a limitation and example. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides the key return fields and ordering, which is useful. It also covers the main usage scenario and limitations. Gaps remain: meeting_type is ambiguous, pagination (limit max=50) is not discussed, and no response envelope details are given. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 67%, and the description adds context for two parameters (created_after, recorded_by) by explaining their role in narrowing. However, limit, meeting_type, created_before, and invitee_domains are not explained in the description beyond schema notes. The description compensates partially but not fully for the missing parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('list recent Fathom meetings') with a specific resource and ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings by listing returned fields and noting the lack of search, setting it apart from get_latest_meeting and get_transcript.

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 tells when to use this tool: to find a specific meeting when no search exists, narrow by filters, and manually filter. It also provides a concrete example ('yesterday's call with McDonald's') and implies alternatives by noting the API has no search, directing the agent to use this tool instead.

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