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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description goes further with details annotations cannot express: the return shape '{ data: [appointment], nextCursor }', the pagination loop ('pass nextCursor back as cursor; null = last page'), and the required scope 'appointments:read (any member)'. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond structured hints.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, ordered purpose → when-to-use/alternative → return-and-pagination → permission. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit return shape and cursor semantics fully cover what the agent would otherwise have to guess. With a 6-parameter, zero-required, fully documented schema and rich annotations, no call-critical information is missing.

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% with per-parameter descriptions and ISO-8601 examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: the implicit result ordering ('sorted by start time') and the fact that the filters compose into a single filtered query. It does not, however, add syntax or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 ('Search appointments across the organization') plus the filter scope and the sort order. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_appointment, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('find an appointment, e.g. today's PENDING requests to approve') and names the alternative tool with the exact condition that selects it ('use get_appointment when you already have the id'). Nothing is left to inference.

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