Детали встречи

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description exposes a critical quirk: for recurring meetings, the API returns the series master, not the specific occurrence, and start is the first meeting's date. This is non-obvious, behaviorally relevant context that annotations don't cover.

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?

Compact and well-structured: the first sentence enumerates the detail fields, and the second paragraph contains a focused warning about recurring meetings. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and the key edge case (recurrence). The agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without needing return value details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by stating that appointment_id comes from calendar_schedule(), which is useful. However, it doesn't elaborate on the parameter's format or semantics beyond that source reference; the schema only shows it as a required string.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns meeting details (participants, call link, location, agenda, recurrence). Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get', the intent is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar_schedule by referencing its output (appointment_id).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on where to obtain appointment_id (from calendar_schedule()). Also gives specific handling for recurring meetings: use calendar_schedule() for the actual occurrence time, which helps the agent decide when to rely on this tool vs alternatives.

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