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

With annotations already declaring destructive=false/write/idempotent, the description adds substantial context: COMPLETED and NO_SHOW are final and irreversible, a webhook fires but no carrier email, and CONFIRMED is silent. It also discloses the required OAuth scopes and roles (appointments:receive, appointments:write). Nothing here contradicts the annotations, and it aligns with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome semantics, then exclusions, then side effects and auth. Very information-dense with little waste, though it reads as a somewhat long run-on string of clauses.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers enum meanings, irreversibility, webhook/email side effects, no-op behavior, sibling routing, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the brief enum text by explaining COMPLETED ends dwell time, NO_SHOW means the truck never came, and CONFIRMED confirms without emailing. This adds real meaning over the schema's one-line enum descriptions.

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+resource ('Record how a truck turned out') and enumerates the exact statuses (COMPLETED, NO_SHOW, CONFIRMED) with their meanings. It clearly distinguishes itself from the several sibling status-changing tools by name.

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 routes the agent: use approve_appointment to approve and notify, and don't use this for cancel (cancel_appointment), reject (reject_appointment), arrival (mark_arrived), or driver updates (check_in_appointment). It also names the no-op case. When/when-not/alternatives are all present.

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