find-online-meeting-by-join-url

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the resolution semantics and the tool's role as the connection point between calendar events and meeting artifacts, so an agent can predict what the result enables.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and its input chain, the second explains the downstream payoff. The resolving action is front-loaded ahead of the workflow context, and every clause earns its place.

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 lookup tool with a single required parameter, a fully documented schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description addresses purpose, trigger condition, and downstream usage. The only gaps are the lack of an output schema and no stated behavior for the not-found case, which are minor given the explicit pointer toward transcript/recording/attendance siblings.

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% and each parameter (joinWebUrl, cursor, maxItems) already carries rich schema-level documentation, including pagination semantics. The description only reinforces that joinWebUrl originates from event.onlineMeeting.joinUrl rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair — 'Resolve an onlineMeeting from a Teams join URL' — and reinforces it with a precise pipeline notation (calendar event -> onlineMeeting.joinUrl -> this tool). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-online-meeting or list-calendar-events by establishing the exact input and where that input comes from.

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 conveys a clear trigger scenario: when an agent has a calendar event's onlineMeeting.joinUrl and needs to reach transcripts/recordings/attendance, this is the required bridge tool. It does not, however, name explicit exclusions or contrast alternatives such as get-online-meeting for cases where a meeting ID is already available.

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