get_meeting_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's function and return data (MeetingResponse with meeting info and all sessions), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements that would enhance transparency for an AI agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by key details, parameters, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse and understand.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and examples, but could improve by addressing potential edge cases or clarifying the relationship with sibling tools like get_schedule for better contextual integration.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'year' is explained with data availability constraints (2023+), and 'country' is clarified with examples (e.g., 'Monaco', 'Italy', 'United States'), though it could specify format expectations like exact country names versus circuit locations.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get meeting and session schedule information') and resources ('from OpenF1'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_schedule or get_session_details by focusing on comprehensive meeting-level data including sessions and circuit details.

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 provides clear context for usage by specifying the data source (OpenF1) and parameter constraints (year 2023+), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_schedule or get_session_details, which might offer overlapping functionality.

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