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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new constraints: a 30-day default window and a hard 366-day maximum range. It also discloses the return shape (counts by status and type), though it omits anything about permissions or how zero-result ranges behave.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines output scope, the second defines temporal constraints. Nothing is repeated from the title, schema, or annotations.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately (counts by status and type). For a three-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete; only error/permission behavior is left unstated.

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 67% (from/to documented as ISO 8601, locationId undocumented). The description compensates by clarifying that results are scoped per location and by adding the default and maximum range semantics that the schema does not express for from/to.

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 (per-location appointment summary with counts by status and type) plus the date-range scope, which distinguishes it from list_appointments and get_appointment. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so sibling routing is inferred rather than 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 aggregation framing (counts by status and type, per location) implicitly signals this is for reporting rather than record retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as list_appointments.

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