get_meeting_decisions

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 doesn't say whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires an event that exists, what happens with events that have no decisions, or what the return format is. An output schema exists which helps, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action. There's zero waste, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without much added length.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param) and has an output schema, so the completeness bar is lower. The description adequately conveys the purpose but lacks usage context (when to use vs. related siblings like get_meeting_outcome), and without annotations the read-only nature isn't explicitly confirmed. Adequate for a simple read tool but not exceptional.

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% with a single parameter (event_id), and the description references 'a specific meeting' which maps to the event_id parameter. The schema already documents event_id as 'Calendar event ID,' so the description adds minimal semantic value but doesn't conflict. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the only parameter fully.

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 states the verb and resource clearly: 'Get all decisions from a specific meeting.' It identifies the specific resource (meeting decisions) with 'a specific meeting' scoping. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_recent_decisions, get_meeting_outcome, or get_meeting_context, which could overlap ambiguously.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to prefer get_recent_decisions, get_meeting_outcome, record_meeting_outcome, or get_meeting_context. The description provides no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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