meetings_list_with_transcripts

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: concurrent checking, the specific permissions required (Calendars.Read, OnlineMeetingTranscript.Read.All), and the return fields including has_transcript. This provides meaningful extra information without contradicting 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return details, a clear use case, and required permissions. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 moderate complexity, strong annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it lists all return fields, explains the concurrency behavior, specifies permissions, and provides a concrete use case guiding when to invoke the tool. Even without an output schema, an agent can infer what to expect.

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 the input schema already fully documents both parameters (days_back and max_meetings) with ranges and defaults. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already says, such as the concurrent check note, which appears in the schema's max_meetings description. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists recent meetings and flags which have transcripts, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent meetings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like meetings_list_transcripts by focusing on the has_transcript boolean rather than returning transcript content, and from meetings_list_past by adding transcript presence checking.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find something worth summarising without fetching transcripts one at a time.' It implies an alternative approach (fetching transcripts individually) but does not name specific sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. This is clear but lacks named exclusions.

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