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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing UTC-day grouping, the 31-day range cap, and the strict exclusion of patient or clinical data. There is 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 no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying data-safety boundaries. Every phrase contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, time range, grouping, and data exclusions. 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?

All three parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaning by constraining the time range to at most 31 days and clarifying that results are aggregated by UTC day, which informs how startTime and endTime should be supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource: count scheduled records by UTC day for one tenant-owned DodoDentist clinic. It sharply differentiates itself from sibling detail tools by stating it returns aggregate administrative counts only and never appointment identifiers, times, or clinical data.

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?

It clearly conveys the narrow context for use: one clinic, at most a 31-day range, and aggregate administrative counts rather than clinical detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of the top score.

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