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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool may return multiple active appointments requiring user choice, cancelled appointments must be avoided, and account-linking via Connect is handled outside the chat. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the immediate usage trigger, then covers status behavior, disambiguation, and auth-related handling in a few tightly packed sentences. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance with 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key operational concerns: when to call, status handling, multi-result disambiguation, and auth-related chat behavior. No critical information appears to be missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema describes 50% of parameters (status), and the description reinforces the status parameter with the exact value 'active' and its purpose. The limit parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description, though its name and type make it partially self-explanatory. This is adequate but not outstanding.

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 clearly conveys that the tool lists the user's appointments and is the entry point for seeing or managing them. It is unambiguous about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_my_service_booking, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-single distinction from the tool name.

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 description gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: use it immediately for appointment-related requests, pass status='active' for reschedule/cancellation, never select a cancelled appointment, and present choices when multiple active appointments are returned. It also provides important chat-level guardrails about Connect and not asking for phone/code.

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