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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees beyond the word 'current'. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal value over the structured hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and then specifies the resource and ordering. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given there is an output schema, return values are covered. The description states what is listed and the ordering, which is useful. However, it lacks any usage context, prerequisites (e.g., a valid practice_slug), or alternative guidance. For a simple list operation, the absence of these details is acceptable, but the parameter explanation gap makes it incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter, practice_slug. However, the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how to obtain or format the slug, nor any indication of required format beyond the schema constraints. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('current public booking, request, form, call, and website actions for a dental practice'). It enumerates the action types and specifies the ordering ('preference order'), making it distinct from siblings that focus on services or slots. An agent can easily tell this from list_public_booking_services or list_xona_booking_slots.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The purpose itself implies usage for listing actions, but no alternatives are named or conditions given. An agent must infer from the resource type, which is adequate but not explicit.

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