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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial non-obvious fact that notify=true sends a message to a third party (the order's customer), which is real behavioral value. It does not say what happens if the slot is taken or whether the old time is released, leaving some gaps for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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?

Three short sentences, mutation front-loaded, then the risk-bearing side effect, then the prerequisite workflow and endpoint. No 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?

For a 4-required-param mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers effect, side effect, prerequisite and endpoint. It omits failure modes (unavailable slot, invalid appointment id) and response shape, which the missing output schema forces the agent to guess.

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% and each parameter already carries format examples and the notify true/false meaning, so the description's restatement of notify adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb ('MOVE') plus resource ('an appointment') plus the exact effect (new start and end time), capitalized to signal mutation. It is unambiguously distinguishable from aryeo_cancel_appointment and aryeo_get_appointment without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Check availability first (aryeo_list_available_timeslots)') and names the alternative tool for that check. It stops short of any exclusion guidance – e.g. when to cancel instead of move – so it is strong but not complete.

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