get_recent_meeting_outcomes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It's a read-only operation ('get') which is clear, but it doesn't disclose return format, result ordering, what 'recent' means, or whether results are scoped to the current user or all meetings. The days_back and limit behavior is approximated via parameter names but not described in prose. The description is minimally transparent but adds little beyond what the name implies.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It's efficient but arguably under-specified for a tool with many sibling getters. Still, brevity is a strength here.

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 has an output schema (which the description needn't explain) and 2 fully documented parameters at 100% coverage. However, among a huge set of meeting/decision/outcome siblings, the lack of differentiation and behavioral detail (ordering, scope, recency semantics) makes the description only minimally complete for the complexity level.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (limit with default 20, days_back with default 30). The description adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could clarify units or interaction between the two parameters.

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 tool lists 'recently recorded meeting outcomes' with a specific verb+resource. It's clear about what it retrieves, though it doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_meeting_outcome, get_meeting_decisions, or get_meeting_context. Since there are many meeting-related getters among siblings, this description alone doesn't clarify which specific outcome type is returned or how it differs from get_meeting_outcome.

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 on when to use this tool over get_meeting_outcome, get_meeting_decisions, or get_recent_decisions. Given the large set of meeting/outcome/decision getters among siblings, explicit differentiation would be valuable but is entirely absent. The description offers no use-case context or exclusions.

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