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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints by stating that identifiers, references, titles, notes, linkage, and clinical fields are never returned. The word 'bounded' further hints at pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the tool's scope, and the second adds a privacy/behavioral guardrail. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is not the description's job; the schema covers filters and cursor pagination, annotations cover safety, and the description covers scope and exclusions. It is slightly incomplete only in not naming a sibling alternative or clarifying the title's 'overrides' term, but nothing essential is missing for a read-only 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 the schema already documents startTime, endTime, clinicId, and cursor; limit is self-explanatory from its constraints. The description adds no parameter-level details, just the 'bounded' qualifier, so it provides minimal value beyond the input schema.

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 and resource: 'List bounded, tenant-scoped non-appointment calendar blocks' and gives concrete examples (closures, courses, meetings, days off). It explicitly distinguishes the tool from appointment-related calendar data, which helps an agent separate it from sibling scheduling tools without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'non-appointment calendar blocks' gives clear context for when this tool applies and excludes appointment/availability data. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the inclusion/exclusion scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for closures, courses, meetings, and days off.

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