Search Fathom Meetings

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the search is case-insensitive, searches across transcripts and summaries (fetched automatically), and is limited to most recent meetings for performance. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples, notes) and front-loads the core functionality. Some redundancy exists between the Args section and schema, but overall it's appropriately sized and organized for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 search tool with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what gets searched, behavioral constraints, and includes helpful examples. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by the Returns section describing the response format.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section mostly repeats schema information, though it adds minor clarification about default values. The examples provide helpful usage patterns but don't add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search across Fathom meeting titles, transcripts, and summaries' with the specific verb 'search' and resource 'meetings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fathom_list_meetings' by emphasizing text search functionality rather than simple listing.

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 ('to find relevant discussions, mentions, or topics') and mentions it searches across transcripts and summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'fathom_list_meetings' or specify when NOT to use it.

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