get_recurring_meeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuine constraint beyond annotations — the OpenProject 17.4+ version requirement — but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or what a 'series' returns versus an occurrence.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the version requirement isolated where it is easy to scan. No filler, though the version note could be folded in more crisply.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. It supplies the one non-structured fact an agent needs — the version floor — making it essentially complete for a single-parameter read.

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% for the single required parameter, and the schema description already tells the agent the id comes from list_recurring_meetings. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single OpenProject recurring meeting series by id'), which is clearly distinct from list_recurring_meetings and from the occurrence tools. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource scope (series, not occurrence) is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool fetches one entity by id, so an agent can infer it should call list_recurring_meetings first. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it differs from list_recurring_meeting_occurrences, and no prerequisites beyond the version gate.

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