list-meeting-recordings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the tool returns only metadata plus a content URL, not the actual media — 'the recording itself stays in OneDrive/SharePoint.' This usefully sets expectations that no content download occurs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource first, then adds a compact parenthetical with the most decision-relevant detail (metadata + URL; content stays remote). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the output shape at a high level, and the remote-storage caveat. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and no detail on which metadata fields are returned, but the description carries enough for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (meetingId, cursor, maxItems) well documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it only clarifies the output nature, not the inputs.

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 ('List'), resource ('recordings of an online meeting'), and what the result contains ('metadata + content URL'). It also disambiguates from the large sibling set: 'recordings' is distinct from list-meeting-transcripts, list-meeting-attendance-reports, and list-meeting-attendance-records, which cover other meeting artifacts.

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 intended use is implied clearly (when you need an online meeting's recording metadata), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. Given the sibling list includes several other 'list-meeting-*' tools, explicit routing would help, though the resource noun provides decent implicit discrimination.

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