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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so description carries less burden. Description adds context about partner key scope and recovery use, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or response structure beyond schema.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states core function, second provides usage scenarios. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and use cases. However, no output schema mentioned, but that's acceptable for a list endpoint. Overall sufficient.

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% with each parameter described (defaults, max, enums). Description does not add meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists appointments created by this partner key (verb+resource). Includes usage scenarios (after crash/restart, check RDVs without storing tokens), but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_appointment' or 'find_next_available'.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: recovering after crash/restart and verifying current appointments without client-side token storage. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives among siblings, but context is helpful.

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