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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the 30-day lookback window, the inclusion of website and pre-signup bookings, and the gating condition that the client's mobile number must be confirmed.

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 with no filler. The core scope comes first, then the id-usefulness and eligibility caveat, which is the right ordering.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, scope, and that ids are returned. It does not sketch the shape of the returned list beyond ids, which is a minor gap for a tool with no output schema, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The implicit scoping to the calling client is stated clearly ('this client').

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (appointments the client booked with pros), plus a precise temporal scope (upcoming and the last 30 days). The client-side framing distinguishes it from pro-side siblings like my_calendar and my_schedule without needing to name them.

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 mention of ids 'for reschedule_my_booking and cancel_my_booking' effectively routes the agent to this tool as the lookup step before those mutations. It does not state explicit exclusions or name a read-only alternative, but the context of use is clear.

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