search_meetings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states what fields are searched and does not disclose return format, pagination, behavior when no results match, or any cost/rate implications. The slower behavior of include_transcript is disclosed in the schema, not the description, leaving behavioral transparency thin.

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?

A single sentence with direct verb-first construction and zero wasted words. The search scope is front-loaded and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight, yet it only covers what is searched. Missing are guidance on when to prefer this over list_meetings, the shape of the result set, and any behavioral caveats. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is an inadequately thin description.

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% — query, limit, and include_transcript are all documented in the schema. The description essentially restates the query parameter's matching behavior ('title, host name, participant email') without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('meetings') with explicit search criteria: title, host name, or participant email. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from list_meetings without needing to open the schema. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the differentiation from sibling tools is implied, not explicitly stated.

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 intended use case — finding a meeting by known attributes rather than listing all meetings or fetching a specific transcript — is reasonably implied by the search semantics. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer the boundary between this tool and list_meetings.

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