meetings_list_transcripts

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns only ids/creation times without fetching content, is cheap, may list multiple transcripts if recording restarted, and requires OnlineMeetingTranscript.Read.All. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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, each earning its place: purpose and input source, return values and cost, domain nuance and permission. It is front-loaded with the main action and has zero fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only list, the description covers purpose, input source, return contents, permission, and a relevant edge case (multiple transcripts). The only notable gap is the inconsistent source of meeting_id, and it does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are minor given the simplicity of the tool. Overall, it is quite complete.

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% for the single parameter, but the schema description says the ID comes from 'get_online_meeting_from_event' while the tool description says it comes from 'meetings_get_from_join_url'. This is a direct contradiction that leaves the agent confused about the correct source. The description does not resolve the mismatch and instead adds a conflicting reference.

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 it lists transcripts for one online meeting, using specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does not fetch content, unlike meetings_get_transcript, and returns only ids and creation times. The domain note about multiple transcripts per meeting further clarifies its purpose.

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?

It provides a prerequisite (meeting id from meetings_get_from_join_url) and a usage rationale (cheap to call for enumeration). It implies this is for discovering available transcripts before fetching content, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them. The guidance is implicit but clear enough.

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