prepare_meeting_context

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior details: results are 'sorted by recency' and syncBefore 'Refresh the local mailbox index from IMAP'—a side effect not evident from the annotation. There is no contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second gives usage timing, and the third covers input requirements and output format. No redundant phrasing.

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 read-only prep tool, it covers input constraints, output sorting, and intended use. It lacks further detail on return thread structure or edge cases (e.g., no matches), but given no output schema exists, the description 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a key cross-parameter constraint ('Provide at least one of person or domain') that is not visible from individual schema entries, boosting the value beyond 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 'Fetch recent threads and communication history for a person or company domain to prepare for a meeting or call.' It identifies a specific action, resources, and purpose, and distinguishes itself from generic thread-fetching tools by focusing on meeting preparation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before a scheduled meeting' and provides input constraints ('Provide at least one of person or domain'). However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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