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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the 31-day maximum window, the per-record fields returned, and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. The auth prerequisite and range cap are exactly the kind of behavior annotations can't express.

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 first two sentences say nearly the same thing — appointments in a date range with staff, job, times and notes — before the distinctive facts (31-day cap, auth) appear. The redundancy costs space and delays the front-loading of useful constraints.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and it covers the range limit and auth prerequisite. Pagination or ordering behavior is unstated, but for a bounded 31-day listing this is close to complete.

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 from/to/staff are already documented. The description's 'range is at most 31 days' and 'pass staff names to see only those people' largely restate the schema ('up to 31 days after from', 'Only these staff members, by name'), adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns Scheduler appointments') plus the fields carried on each record (staff, job, start and end times, notes). An agent can distinguish this read/list tool from the mutation sibling tradify_schedule_appointment without opening either 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?

Clear context for usage: query a date range and optionally narrow to specific people by name. It does not, however, name any alternative (e.g., schedule_appointment or a jobs listing) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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