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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds sorting, server-side field exclusion, pagination cap, and hasMore truncation reporting. This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then projection, then filtering/pagination. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers auth scope, sort, projection, filtering, pagination, and truncation. Nothing needed 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?

Schema covers all 5 parameters with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a compact semantic layer: filters are optional, startTime/endTime form a window, and limit caps results. This is useful but not a large amount of new per-parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List'), a bounded resource ('appointments'), and scope ('authenticated user's organization'), plus sort order ('most recent start time first'). The field-projection sentence distinguishes it from detail/calendar tools, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 defines when to use it: for a bounded, sorted page of appointment summaries, with optional filters. It also states what is excluded server-side (notes, reminders, contact details, payments), which is an explicit when-not, though it does not name sibling alternatives like get_appointment or list_calendar_events.

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