Get Meeting

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds extra context beyond them. It explains that a missing field means 'not in this payload' rather than 'no data at all' and describes how anonymous guests appear, providing valuable behavioral detail for handling responses.

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 a single, lengthy paragraph but stays focused on the tool's behavior and data shape. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on field details and edge cases; while a bit verbose, each part contributes useful information without excess fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and that the output schema is not shown (though hinted to exist), the description comprehensively explains the return payload, including field enumeration, missing-field semantics, and anonymous participant representation. It fully prepares the agent to understand what get_meeting returns and how to interpret it.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds extra nuance by explaining that fields are requested 'by key' and that omitted parameters default to all fields, plus the meaning of missing fields, enriching the parameter semantics 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 'One meeting with its full participant list,' which specifies the verb (get) and resource (meeting), and distinguishes it from list_meetings by focusing on a single meeting. It also explains the default return behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by saying 'One meeting' and referencing the conference_key, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over siblings like list_meetings or get_recording. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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