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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: results come back in date/time order, unassigned appointments carry an empty cleaners list, cancelled records are excluded by default, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. Pagination behaviour around the cursor is left to the schema, which keeps this out of the top band.

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?

Six compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, then filtering and the auth prerequisite. Nothing is filler, though the enumeration of return fields in the first sentence is dense and slightly repetitive with the later search list.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and their ordering, and it flags the auth requirement and the cancelled-appointment default. What it does not cover is how paging works in practice (when to follow the cursor), which is the only notable gap for a 7-parameter list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning for two parameters: 'paid' is framed as a way to find unpaid jobs, and 'include_cancelled' is framed as an opt-in rather than the default. The remaining parameters (from/to/limit/cursor/query) get no extra narrative, so it does not reach 5.

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 verb (returns appointments) plus resource, scope (a date range) and the fields carried back (customer, time, cleaners, price, paid flag). The date-range scoping clearly separates it from the sibling single-appointment tool zenmaid_get_appointment, and the 'List View' reference anchors it to a known surface in the product.

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?

It gives concrete usage routes: filter by payment status to surface unpaid jobs, or search by customer/cleaner/address/custom field, and it notes cancelled appointments only appear when requested. It stops short of naming alternative ZenMaid tools or when not to use this one, so it is strong context without explicit exclusions.

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