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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing that 'Event identifiers, staff references, titles, and notes are never returned' — a critical expectation-setting behavior an agent needs to know before relying on the output. 'Bounded pagination' is also useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the critical data-withholding caveat is stated second. Every phrase 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?

With a rich annotation set (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers scope, exclusions, and the notable never-returned fields, making it sufficiently complete for a filtered-list tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents four of five parameters. The description's 'bounded pagination' hint maps to limit/cursor semantics and the scope qualifiers echo startTime/endTime/clinicId filtering, but the description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List ... calendar blocks') with explicit scoping ('tenant-scoped non-appointment') and enumerates the block types (courses, meetings, days off, closures). It distinguishes itself from appointment-related tools via 'non-appointment', though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling such as get_clinic_availability or get_clinic_schedule_summary.

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 'non-appointment' qualifier implicitly tells the agent this tool excludes appointments and thereby steers away from appointment-centric flows, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Given the sibling list includes conceptually overlapping tools (get_clinic_availability, get_clinic_schedule_summary), the routing guidance is only implied, not stated.

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