list_meetings

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the returned field list but not behavioral details such as ordering, date filtering, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a baseline-adequate score.

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 a single short fragment with no filler, so it is concise in length. However, it is so terse that it reads more like a response label than a complete tool definition, making it under-specified rather than well-structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the field list provides useful context about what is returned. Yet the agent is left without knowing how limit affects results or whether records are ordered, so the description has clear but not severe gaps.

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?

The only parameter, limit, is not mentioned anywhere in the description, and the schema provides no description coverage either. The description neither explains what limit controls nor hints at pagination, so it adds no value beyond the raw schema field.

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 'Последние записи' (latest records) and enumerates the fields (id, platform, link, when, phase, duration), which together with the tool name make clear this tool lists recent meetings. It is distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings like join_meeting or transcribe_recording. However, it doesn't explicitly phrase the action as 'list meetings', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus meeting_status or get_transcript, and no indication of when not to use it. The description only reports output contents, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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