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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words on content behavior: it discloses the returned fields and, notably, that titles and notes are withheld. That "no titles or notes" caveat is real added value an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: trigger first, return shape second, exclusion last. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to route the agent and set scope expectations, which it does. It even pre-empts a likely question (missing titles/notes) that the output schema alone would not explain.

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% with five documented parameters (limit, cursor, startTime, endTime, clinicId), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no date-format or pagination guidance beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a concrete resource (closures, holidays, blocked chair time) with a clear list verb and scope (blocks and extra openings, not appointments). It clearly excludes patient appointments, which separates it from appointment-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative like get_clinic_availability for scheduling questions.

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?

"Use this when someone asks when their dental practice is closed" gives an explicit trigger, and "Not for patient appointments" sets a when-not boundary. It does not, however, point to the tool an agent should use instead for appointments or general availability.

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