meetings_list_past

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering ('most recent first'), optional filtering ('optionally restricted to online ones'), return fields ('id, subject, times, organiser and join URL'), and a permission requirement ('Requires Calendars.Read'). It also discloses that it returns all meetings, not just those with transcripts, contrasting with the via mention of the alternative.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose stated immediately, followed by return fields, use case, alternative, and permission. Each sentence provides distinct value with no redundant content, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema but the description lists return fields, and annotations cover safety/isolation. The description supplies permission, ordering, filtering behavior, and use-case guidance, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates the 'online_only' concept with 'optionally restricted to online ones' and notes 'join URL' in the return fields, but this is already implied by the parameter description. No additional syntax or edge-case guidance is provided.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'meetings', and the scope 'the signed-in user's meetings from the last N days'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'meetings_list_with_transcripts' by noting it is better when only recorded meetings matter, and explicitly frames the use case as 'what did I attend' and finding meetings to summarise.

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 explicitly names when to use this tool ('starting point for what did I attend' and 'finding a meeting to summarise') and when not to use it ('meetings_list_with_transcripts is better when only recorded meetings matter'). It also states a requirement ('Requires Calendars.Read'), providing clear prerequisites.

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