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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the data is returned in form order and includes which built-in fields each type hides or requires. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds distinct content about built-in field visibility rules.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description communicates the shape of the returned data well. However, it leaves gaps around when to use the tool, how the required locationId is used, and how the optional appointmentTypeId affects the result, which are important for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies appointmentTypeId filters by type but says nothing about the required locationId or whether appointmentTypeId is optional and what happens when it is omitted. The two parameters remain largely undocumented.

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 (list) and resource (booking questions) with additional scope: extra questions carriers answer when booking, per appointment type, in form order. It also distinguishes content by mentioning built-in field visibility rules, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling create/update/delete_booking_question tools.

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 'per appointment type', but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus other list tools or what happens if appointmentTypeId is omitted. No alternatives or prerequisites are named, leaving routing to inference.

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