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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is scoped to a single appointment and capped at 50 booked services with prices, which tells the agent what to expect from the payload.

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, each earning its place: usage trigger first, then return contents, then the exclusion. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what it is, when to call it, what it returns (including the 50-service cap), and what it isn't for. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single appointmentId parameter, the schema already documents the 24-lowercase-hex format and that it comes from the appointment list. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (get one appointment's details) and enumerates exactly what it returns: client and salon ids, times, status, and up to 50 booked services with prices. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_appointments by explicitly excluding date-based lookup.

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 gives a clear triggering condition ('when someone asks what services a specific appointment includes, their prices, or the appointment's status') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for finding bookings by date'). The only gap is that it doesn't name list_appointments as the alternative tool to use for date-based searches.

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