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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: login is required and results are restricted to the authenticated user. It does not detail output shape or error behavior, but that is secondary given the read-only annotations.

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 compact sentence with the sandbox context and login requirement front-loaded before the actual behavior. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or annotations.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose, authentication need, and user scoping. However, with three parameters, no output schema, and weak parameter explanations, an agent gets limited guidance on the optional hold_id and appointment_id fields and the response format. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 33%, with hold_id and appointment_id having no descriptions. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to the listed holds and appointments. It only mentions the domain nouns, which is too weak 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 states a specific action ('zeigt') and resource ('eigene Holds und Sandbox-Termine') and explicitly limits results to the logged-in user. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sandbox_hold_slot and sandbox_request_appointment, which are about creating/reserving rather than listing existing bookings.

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 clear context: this is a read-only sandbox tool that requires login and returns only the current user's holds and appointments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for listing personal bookings.

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