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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: results are ordered by start time, each item carries client/service/provider/status/price, and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app. The auth prerequisite is the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five sentences, all front-loaded with the core capability first and supporting details afterward. Slightly more verbose than needed (the client/service/provider/status list is stated twice), but no sentence is pure 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned item fields (client, service, provider, status, price). Safety is covered by annotations and the auth requirement is stated, so an agent has enough to call it correctly despite lacking pagination details.

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 already documents from, to, status, location_id, and provider_id fully. The description reinforces date-range and provider filtering but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource (list appointments) with specific scope: a date range, one location, filtered by client/service/provider/status. It also flags a distinguishing capability ('reads the calendar by date, which the official API cannot do') that separates it from search_availability, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Filter by provider to read one person's day' gives one concrete usage context, and the date-range framing implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. search_availability or list_waitlist), leaving routing to inference.

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