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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that inactive questions are included, that built-in fields' hide/require status is returned, and that the operation requires the locations:read scope. It does not mention pagination or response size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by scope and sibling contrast. Every sentence adds distinct information (return contents, sibling differentiation, required scope) with no redundancy.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so clearly: the questions, their form order, built-in field hide/require status, and question ids for update/delete tools. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering inputs, the definition is complete enough 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 100%, and the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces that questions are returned 'per appointment type' but does not explain syntax, defaults, or filtering nuances beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('list booking questions') and immediately details the exact contents: carrier questions per appointment type, form order, built-in field visibility, and question ids. It also contrasts with the sibling list_appointment_types, which returns only active questions, so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states that inactive questions are included and directs the agent to list_appointment_types for only the active questions a booking must answer. It also names the required scope (locations:read, any member), giving clear conditions for use.

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