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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output shape ('clean list with owners and due dates') and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when there are no action items or when the meeting ID is invalid.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, the scope, and the output format with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned ('owners and due dates') and the input source ('a meeting'). It could be more complete about empty results or error behavior, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, with meeting_id already described as 'The Fathom meeting ID'. The description adds no new parameter details beyond referencing the meeting. This matches the baseline where 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('action items from a meeting') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary and get_transcript with the word 'only'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby 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?

The phrase 'only the action items' communicates a specific use case: extracting action items rather than summaries or transcripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools and the 'only' qualifier provide clear contextual 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, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'AI-generated' hints at a computed or cached summary, but there is no mention of freshness, availability of summaries, or any permissions required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning and it communicates the tool's core return content immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the return content (summary, key points, action items). It could be more complete by addressing the overlap with get_action_items, but the essential calling context is present.

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 the meeting_id parameter is documented with its source (list_meetings). The description itself adds no parameter-level details, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a clear resource: the AI-generated summary, key points, and action items for a meeting. It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_action_items, which also covers action items.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_action_items, get_transcript, or search_meetings. The only implicit context is 'for a meeting,' which does not help an agent decide between the overlapping siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output type and its characteristics ('full', 'speaker-labelled', 'timestamped'), which helps an agent understand what will be returned. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or potential unavailability of transcripts, but 'get' reasonably implies a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded sentence that directly states the resource and its key attributes. There is no redundant wording or filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input, the output, and distinguishing transcript features. It falls slightly short by not providing any explicit usage guidance or disambiguation from sibling tools, though the purpose is clear enough for straightforward selection.

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%, and the meeting_id parameter is already documented with a source hint ('get from list_meetings'). The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the full speaker-labelled, timestamped transcript') and clearly identifies what is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary and get_action_items without needing to inspect 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a transcript when the user needs the full speaker-labelled, timestamped record of a meeting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_summary or search_meetings, nor does it offer any exclusions or alternative routing.

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 must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the scope ('your' meetings) and hints at pagination via 'pagination filters', but doesn't state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the response shape or pagination behavior such as cursor usage. For a simple listing tool the description does some work but leaves key behavioral details implicit.

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 one sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists filter categories with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and it is immediately parsable.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics (what and filters) but lacks return-value expectations, pagination details, and any relation to sibling tools. It is adequate, but an agent would benefit from knowing the response includes a cursor or how list_meetings differs from search_meetings.

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 each parameter (limit, cursor, team_id, to_date, from_date) is already documented. The description groupes these into 'date, team, and pagination filters' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear action ('List'), the resource ('your Fathom meetngs'), and the filtering options ('date, team, and pagination filters'). It describes what the tool does unambiguously, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling search_meetings, so it earns 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_meetings. The text says only that filters are available, which implies context but does not state any exclusion or alternative. An agent is left to infer the trade-offs between listing and searching.

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, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, which is important, but the description does not disclose whether results are paginated, ordered, or require any specific permissions. For a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without redundant words. 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the key details: what is listed and the scope ('in your Fathom organization'). The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is simply nothing to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all teams in your Fathom organization'), making the operation immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the meeting-focused sibling tools by naming 'teams' as the entity.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving teams in the organization, and the sibling tools all concern meetings or transcripts, so there is little ambiguity about when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the resource distinction is sufficient.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states what fields are searched and does not disclose return format, pagination, behavior when no results match, or any cost/rate implications. The slower behavior of include_transcript is disclosed in the schema, not the description, leaving behavioral transparency thin.

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 sentence with direct verb-first construction and zero wasted words. The search scope is front-loaded and every part of the sentence 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight, yet it only covers what is searched. Missing are guidance on when to prefer this over list_meetings, the shape of the result set, and any behavioral caveats. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is an inadequately thin description.

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% — query, limit, and include_transcript are all documented in the schema. The description essentially restates the query parameter's matching behavior ('title, host name, participant email') without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Search') and resource ('meetings') with explicit search criteria: title, host name, or participant email. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from list_meetings without needing to open the schema. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the differentiation from sibling tools is implied, not explicitly stated.

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 intended use case — finding a meeting by known attributes rather than listing all meetings or fetching a specific transcript — is reasonably implied by the search semantics. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer the boundary between this tool and list_meetings.

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