Get a meeting type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the full current configuration and frames it as the basis for a safe update, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or error conditions beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 a front-loaded verb and resource, followed by a compact field list and a one-line purpose. Every part is useful and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is an explicit pointer to how to obtain meetingTypeId, though the parameter name and the presence of list_meeting_types make the intent recoverable.

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?

The schema has no description for meetingTypeId and the tool description does not address the parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated by explaining where the ID comes from or how it should be formatted, but it leaves the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full configuration of one meeting type' and enumerates the fields returned (duration, channel, buffers, booking questions, reminders, host or queue). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_meeting_types by emphasizing a single fully-detailed type.

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 states a clear use case: 'The result exposes the current values needed for a safe update,' which signals the agent to call this before modifying a meeting type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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