List scheduled meetings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: ordering, recurrence expansion within the window, omission of room/admin passwords, and the meaning of conflicts. It still omits read-only status, auth requirements, and pagination/limits, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the ordering rule, and each sentence adds distinct operational or output information. There is no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with five parameters, the description is helpful but incomplete: it explains recurrence, password omission, and conflicts, but not the full row shape, default window behavior, pagination, or permissions.

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 schema already defines from, to, phase, timezone, and flag_overlaps. The description adds context about window recurrence and conflicts but does not add parameter-level syntax or clarify flag_overlaps beyond the schema.

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 states what is returned, in what order, and notes recurrence expansion, which makes clear this is a schedule-listing tool. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling list_meetings, but the title and tool name resolve the resource.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives such as list_meetings or schedule_meeting. Usage is only implied by the window-oriented return behavior.

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