list_recurring_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations don't: a minimum server version (OpenProject 17.4+) and the implicit permission scoping ('readable projects') that governs what the result set contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the version gate, then the scoping rule. No filler and nothing buried mid-paragraph.

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 paginated read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers purpose, version gate, and scoping. The only gap is the result shape (fields returned per series), which is not documented anywhere since there is no output schema.

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%, so limit and offset are self-documenting and the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic effect of passing null for 'project' — a cross-project listing — which the schema's 'Project identifier, id, or name' line does not convey.

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 ('List OpenProject recurring meeting series') with the scope modifier 'optionally scoped to a project'. It is distinguishable from get_recurring_meeting, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from list_recurring_meeting_occurrences or list_meetings, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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?

'Omit project to list across all readable projects' gives a clear decision rule for the main branching choice in how to call it, and the 17.4+ requirement signals a precondition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_recurring_meeting_occurrences) or stating when this is the wrong tool.

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