List All Meeting Recordings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned set is permission-scoped (standalone recordings plus incident-backed recordings the user can access), which tells the agent results vary by caller access.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the filter list. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 present, return structure needn't be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The description supplies access scoping and filter coverage; only pagination or result-limit behavior is notably absent.

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% and all three filter parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the filter names without adding accepted values, formats, or combination semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List meeting recordings') plus scope ('across the organization'), and clarifies the result set as the user's standalone recordings plus incident-backed ones. This implicitly separates it from the sibling list_meeting_recordings and get_meeting_recording, though it never names them.

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 by the phrase 'across the organization' – an agent can infer this is the broad listing versus narrower siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the relationship with list_meeting_recordings is left to inference.

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