Convo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing recent meetings with search/filter capabilities but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, default sorting). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key functionalities. Every word earns its place with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's scope.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses essential context like behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), return values, and detailed usage scenarios. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter ('limit', 'search', 'since') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Search by title or filter by date,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List', 'Search', 'filter') and resource ('your recent meetings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_upcoming_meetings' by focusing on recent meetings rather than future ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_summary' might also involve listing).

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 implies usage context through 'Search by title or filter by date,' suggesting when to use it for specific queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_upcoming_meetings' for future meetings or 'get_summary' for summarized lists. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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