list_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the odd phrase "cached candidates," which raises an unresolved question about staleness/source that the annotations' openWorldHint=true does not clarify. No pagination, ordering, or result-size behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, which is appropriately sized. However, brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight editing, so it does not earn a high score.

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?

With four optional filter parameters, no required args, and an output schema present, the description should explain filter semantics and any caching behavior. It covers neither, so an agent cannot tell how to scope a query or interpret "candidates" versus official metadata.

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 0% across four parameters (date_from, date_to, committee, meeting_type), so the schema supplies titles only and no type/format semantics. The description never mentions any parameter, leaving date format, committee matching rules, and type values entirely undocumented.

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?

It states a verb and resource ("query official meeting metadata" + "list"), but "for the requested scope" is circular and "cached candidates" is undefined — it's unclear whether this reads cache or official source data. No sibling is named or contrasted, though none of the siblings obviously overlap with meeting listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase "for the requested scope" weakly implies filtering by the parameters, but the agent gets no direction on when listing is preferable to searching.

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