search_meetings

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 honestly reveals key limitations: 'Max 40 results from the past 6 months' and 'Only available with a personal API key.' It also states the return format, which is useful. It does not mention whether search is read-only, but 'search' implies no mutation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short declarative sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return details and key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type ('matching text excerpts with meeting references') and important practical limits. It does not explain error handling or the full scope of what 'meeting content' includes, but given the simplicity of the schema and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (query, startDate, endDate) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, but it does clarify the overall behavior (semantic matching) without altering parameter meaning.

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 'Semantic search across meeting content' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_meetings, get_meeting, and delete_meeting. It also specifies the output ('matching text excerpts with meeting references'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for semantic content search rather than listing or retrieving individual meetings), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does add a practical constraint: 'Only available with a personal API key,' which guides usage context.

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