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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that each appointment carries its client, services, staff, state and cancellation, and maps the call to the underlying GraphQL 'appointments' field — real context beyond the structured data, though it says nothing about pagination or volume limits.

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 tight sentences: the primary scope (location) leads, optional refinements follow, and the return-content note closes. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields each appointment returns. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination behavior and cardinality limits are left unstated.

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 all five parameters (after, first, query, client_id, location_id) are already documented in the schema with examples and formats. The description only restates the client and query filters at a higher level, adding no syntax or constraint detail — the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (appointments) plus its scope: one location, optionally one client, with a query filter. It contrasts implicitly with boulevard_get_appointment via the list/get distinction, but never names the sibling or explicitly delimits the boundary.

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?

Clear context for invocation: it is location-scoped, with optional client narrowing and query-based filtering such as date range or staff member. No when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. use get_appointment for a single record), so it stops short of a 5.

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