meetings_get_attendance_report

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: permission scope, organizer-only restriction, and the output includes join/leave times and duration. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, contrast with alternative, and access requirements.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential context: purpose, differences from sibling, access restrictions, and permission. It even hints at the output structure (join/leave times and duration).

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 provides full coverage (100%) for the only parameter, meeting_id, with description 'The online meeting ID.' The tool description simply repeats this as 'given an online meeting id' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get who actually attended a Teams meeting, with join and leave times and total duration per person.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool calendar_get_event_attendees, which returns invite responses, not real attendance.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (calendar_get_event_attendees) and explains the difference: 'This reflects real attendance, which is not the same as the invite list.' Also specifies access constraints: 'Only available to the meeting organiser' and required permission 'OnlineMeetingArtifact.Read.All.'

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