qobrix_list_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return structure ({ data, pagination }), the available include associations, and a specific workflow. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, permissions, or rate limits. For a list operation, the 'List' verb and return details provide reasonable transparency, but not exhaustive.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides distinct information: purpose, return shape, include options, and workflow. It is slightly dense but well-organized, with no filler or redundancy. The structure flows logically from general to specific, making it easy for an agent to parse key details quickly.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the paginated return shape. It also addresses the key ambiguity around meetings vs viewings, which is essential for correct tool selection. The description does not mention potential error conditions, sorting nuances, or edge cases, but for a list tool with a rich parameter schema, this level of context is largely sufficient.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value by explaining the include parameter's role in distinguishing meetings from viewings and suggesting a concrete workflow. While the schema already lists the include options, the description provides the meaningful 'why' behind using them, and the emphasis on the first meeting/showing as a lead trigger adds context beyond the schema.

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 'List meetings' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes it from sibling tools like qobrix_list_viewings by explaining that meetings can wrap property viewings via RESO Showing ↔ Meeting. It also provides domain context (bridges Activity Tracking and Showing Lifecycle workflows), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains the relationship between meetings and viewings and recommends the include=['ViewingPropertyViewings'] workflow to differentiate property showings from general meetings. It also mentions the canonical trigger role, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use this instead of list_viewings when...'), so some inference is left to the user.

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