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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that identifiers, staff references, titles, and notes are never returned, and mentions bounded pagination. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core function, and includes the most important constraints. Every phrase carries meaning, with no wasted words or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, and the description covers what is returned and what is not, plus the tenant scope. It does not elaborate on pagination mechanics or parameter usage, but the schema and output schema fill most gaps, leaving the description reasonably complete for a list operation.

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 most parameters (cursor, endTime, clinicId, startTime) already have descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, and the 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description and is not addressed in the description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists tenant-scoped non-appointment calendar blocks and enumerates specific types (courses, meetings, days off, closures). It also explicitly states what is never returned (event identifiers, staff references, titles, notes), distinguishing it from potential siblings like availability or schedule summary tools.

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 description gives clear context about the tool's scope (tenant-scoped, non-appointment) and what it does not return, helping an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when to prefer other tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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