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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so the description rightly focuses on behavior it alone can convey: day-grouped slots, the 7-day/100-slot caps, and the privacy guarantee that no patient or doctor details are returned. The only minor gap is that the caps are stated as fixed without noting what happens if openings exceed them.

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, no filler, with the trigger condition front-loaded, the return shape and limits in the middle, and the exclusion last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value internals need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the shape (start/end per slot, grouped by day) and the caps. Combined with annotations, nothing needed to call the tool 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?

There is only one parameter (clinicId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents its format and pattern. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (find/return free appointment or consultation slots for a practice) and scopes it clearly as availability lookup. An agent can distinguish it from booking flows and the list_* siblings without opening the 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?

The opening clause gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks when their doctor's practice has free appointment times') and the closing clause excludes the alternative action ('Not for booking a visit'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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