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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('generate a summary') but doesn't describe what the summary includes (e.g., key points, action items), how long it takes, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence: 'Generate a summary of a meeting transcript.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.

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, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 schema already documents both parameters (transcript_id and format with enum values). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a transcript_id is, where to get it, or the implications of the format choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Generate a summary of a meeting transcript' specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('summary of a meeting transcript'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fireflies_get_transcript_details' which retrieves details rather than generating summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative summary tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid transcript_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'fireflies_search_transcripts' for finding transcripts first. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('human-readable formatted transcript with speaker names and text, along with metadata and summary information'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it omits critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return value without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy like 'detailed information' and 'formatted transcript'.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides a basic overview but is incomplete. It covers the purpose and return format but misses behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and error handling, which are important for a retrieval tool.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'transcript_id' adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed information about a specific transcript', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single transcript rather than lists or summaries, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implied by specifying 'specific transcript' and the required transcript_id parameter, suggesting this tool is for detailed retrieval of a known transcript. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like fireflies_get_transcripts for lists or fireflies_generate_summary for summaries.

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

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 adds context beyond the input schema by describing performance traits: 'this operation may take longer for large datasets and might timeout' and 'If a timeout occurs, a minimal set of transcript data will be returned.' This covers critical behavioral aspects like latency, timeout risks, and fallback behavior, which are not captured in the schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling details, preventing a perfect 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second covers defaults, and the third addresses performance and fallback behavior. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for performance notes) to enhance clarity, hence a 4 instead of a 5.

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 complexity (list retrieval with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, default behavior, and performance constraints. It compensates for the lack of annotations by disclosing timeout behavior and fallback outcomes. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of transcript list) or error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (limit, from_date, to_date). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying date filtering and limit usage without providing additional syntax or format details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Retrieve a list of meeting transcripts with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (meeting transcripts), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'fireflies_get_transcript_details' (single transcript) and 'fireflies_search_transcripts' (search functionality). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fireflies_generate_summary' in terms of data retrieval vs. processing, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning default behavior (returns up to 20 most recent transcripts) and performance considerations (timeouts with large datasets). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fireflies_search_transcripts' or 'fireflies_generate_summary', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. This results in a score of 3 for implied but incomplete guidance.

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

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 mentions the tool returns a 'human-readable list of matching transcripts with metadata and summary information', which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('search for transcripts containing specific keywords') and adds secondary details ('optional date filtering', 'returns a human-readable list'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (search with filtering), 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, making it minimally viable but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date filtering is optional, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: searching for transcripts containing keywords with optional date filtering. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('transcripts'), and scope ('keywords, with optional date filtering'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fireflies_get_transcripts' which might retrieve transcripts without searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fireflies_get_transcripts' or 'fireflies_get_transcript_details'. It mentions optional date filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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