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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: the side effect of appearing on the Sales Calendar, the confirm-each-call default, the external-reach caution, and the required Cotlet API key scope.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description restates itself: the opening sentence and the second sentence both say a sales appointment is added to an inquiry and appears on the Sales Calendar. The confirmation guidance is also split and partially repeated.

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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action, its calendar side effect, the inquiry default, confirmation behavior, and the API-key requirement. Missing only explicit guidance on sibling-tool selection.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only adds the inquiry_id default ('the latest one unless set'), which is minor value on top of what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: adding a sales appointment to a contact's inquiry, with the visible effect (appears on the Sales Calendar). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like marketsharp_list_appointments, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to route the agent.

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?

Gives operational context (per-call confirmation, inquiry defaults to the latest) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as marketsharp_issue_appointments or marketsharp_result_appointment, which share the appointment domain. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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