list_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the scope ('your' meetings) and hints at pagination via 'pagination filters', but doesn't state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the response shape or pagination behavior such as cursor usage. For a simple listing tool the description does some work but leaves key behavioral details implicit.

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 one sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists filter categories with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and it is immediately parsable.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics (what and filters) but lacks return-value expectations, pagination details, and any relation to sibling tools. It is adequate, but an agent would benefit from knowing the response includes a cursor or how list_meetings differs from search_meetings.

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 each parameter (limit, cursor, team_id, to_date, from_date) is already documented. The description groupes these into 'date, team, and pagination filters' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('List'), the resource ('your Fathom meetngs'), and the filtering options ('date, team, and pagination filters'). It describes what the tool does unambiguously, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling search_meetings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_meetings. The text says only that filters are available, which implies context but does not state any exclusion or alternative. An agent is left to infer the trade-offs between listing and searching.

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