Get Meeting Recording

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns status, duration, speaker count, word count, and transcript summary, but does not clarify authorization requirements, error behavior for missing/inaccessible recordings, or what the 'include' parameter changes behaviorally.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then lists return fields. It is appropriately sized, though the bulky field enumeration overlaps with what the output schema likely documents.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations present, the description need not document return structure or safety. However, for a tool with a non-obvious 'include=transcript' option and nearby list-oriented siblings, it should do more to explain selection and inclusion semantics.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not explain the 'id' format beyond what the schema says, and it does not clarify the important semantic distinction of 'include=transcript' (full transcript retrieval versus the default transcript summary). It adds little parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve a single meeting recording session, and enumerates the fields returned (status, duration, speaker count, word count, transcript summary). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_meeting_recordings and list_all_meeting_recordings, though those siblings are not named.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the by-id fetch tool to use after listing recordings. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_meeting_recordings, list_all_meeting_recordings, or get_incident_meeting_transcripts, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an id from a list call.

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