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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (searching, pulling, consolidating) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it modifies data, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose ('Prepare a briefing for an upcoming meeting') and then detailing the process in a single, efficient sentence. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's functionality without unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (involving searching and consolidating data from past meetings), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on the output format, error conditions, or dependencies. However, it adequately covers the purpose and basic usage, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('search' and 'max_past_meetings') with descriptions. The description adds some context by mentioning 'person name, company name, or topic' for the search parameter, but this is largely redundant with the schema. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('prepare a briefing', 'searches past meetings', 'pulls summaries and open action items', 'returns a consolidated briefing') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on preparation for upcoming meetings rather than retrieval, analysis, or sharing of meeting data. It explicitly mentions the resource ('meetings') and the outcome ('show up prepared').

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for an upcoming meeting' and 'to show up prepared'), implying it's for preparation purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'get_summary' for summaries or 'find_action_items' for action items), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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