qobrix_get_meeting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the return format ({ data: { id, ... } }) and the meaning of the include parameter, plus the caveat 'if it wraps a showing'. However, it omits error behavior, auth requirements, and potential null results, making it only partially transparent.

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 long, with the first sentence providing the core purpose and return shape, and the second listing include options. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return shape, and include details. It doesn't explain error responses or what happens when the meeting is not found, but given the simplicity and available schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the include associations and adding the nuance 'ViewingPropertyViewings (if it wraps a showing)' which goes beyond the schema's flat list of options. This extra context justifies a 4 over the baseline 3.

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 'Get a single meeting by UUID' with the specific resource (meeting) and action (get). It also notes the meeting detail in the Activity/Showing Lifecycle and provides the return shape, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_meetings or search_meetings.

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 when you have a meeting UUID and need a single meeting's details. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the clear scope and sibling list provide sufficient context. Missing explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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