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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile. The description adds real value beyond them: default status scope (SCHEDULED only), default sort order, and the include-expansion trick for seeing location and assignees. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result limits beyond what the schema states.

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 dense sentences plus the endpoint, with the defaults front-loaded before the filter list. Efficient, though the sentence packing several filters plus the include hint is slightly heavy and the trailing 'GET /appointments' is near-redundant for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note on defaults and ordering compensates partly, and the schema itself is fully documented for pagination and expansion. Return field shape is not described, but for a filtered list endpoint with rich schema this is a minor gap.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning on top: it gives a concrete include value example ('order,order.address,users to see where and who') and reinforces the SCHEDULED default for statuses. It doesn't explicate tense/start_after semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('List appointments (shoots/visits)'), clarifies terminology, and declares defaults (SCHEDULED, newest start first). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling aryeo_get_appointment, but the list-vs-single distinction is clear from the verb.

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?

Enumerates the available filter dimensions (upcoming/past, status, time window, assigned users), which implies when to use it. It never says when NOT to use it or names alternatives like aryeo_get_appointment for a single record or aryeo_list_available_timeslots for scheduling.

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