list_meetings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that meetings must have 'recordings that exist in the cloud,' which adds some context about data availability. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function.

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 complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output format. While it specifies the resource and a constraint (recordings in the cloud), it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 description does not mention any parameters, while the input schema covers 50% of parameters (2 out of 2, with nested object 'dateRange' having descriptions for 'from' and 'to', but 'participant' lacks description). Since schema description coverage is 50% (low), the description should compensate but doesn't. It implies filtering by recordings in the cloud, which isn't reflected in the schema, adding marginal value. Baseline is 3 as schema does some work, but gaps remain.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available Zoom meetings with recordings that exist in the cloud.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Zoom meetings'), and a key constraint ('with recordings that exist in the cloud'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_transcripts' or 'search_transcripts,' which appear to be transcript-focused rather than meeting-focused.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering by recordings in the cloud, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for Zoom-specific meetings or how it differs from transcript-related tools in the context.

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