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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds behavior beyond that: results come latest-first and are capped at 100, and the tool spans all of the user's salons unless scoped. It does not discuss pagination beyond the cap.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the usage conditions, followed by return shape and the exclusion. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still conveys filters, scope, ordering and the cap. Combined with complete parameter coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning (date-window filtering, all-salon default, 100 cap, latest-first ordering); the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource (list salon appointments), and states scope precisely: across all the user's salons or just one, with id, client/salon ids, times and status. The closing 'Not for the services inside an appointment' draws a boundary that separates it from appointment-detail siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: counting appointments in a day or period, canceled/no-show counts, or when a client is booked. It also states one exclusion (services inside an appointment), but does not name the alternative sibling to use instead, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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