List Fathom Meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies this retrieves 'meeting recordings' (not just metadata), mentions pagination behavior, describes what optional content can be included (summaries, transcripts, etc.), and provides examples of common use cases. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by logical groupings of functionality, then parameter explanations, return information, and practical examples. Every section earns its place by adding distinct value. The information density is high without being verbose.

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 list/retrieve tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage, this description provides excellent context. It explains what kind of data is retrieved, filtering capabilities, optional inclusions, pagination behavior, output format options, and includes practical examples. The lack of output schema is compensated by the clear 'Returns' statement and format parameter explanation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by grouping parameters into logical categories ('You can filter by:' and 'You can optionally include:'), providing context about what each filter type does, and giving concrete examples in the Examples section. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships and typical usage patterns beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'meeting recordings from your Fathom account', distinguishing it from siblings like fathom_search_meetings (which likely has different search capabilities) and fathom_get_summary/fathom_get_transcript (which focus on specific meeting details rather than listing). The opening sentence establishes the core functionality with optional filtering and pagination.

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 about when to use this tool - for listing meetings with various filtering options. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the examples and parameter descriptions help guide usage. The distinction from siblings like fathom_search_meetings is implied but not explicitly stated.

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