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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful pre-condition framing (call this before creating) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about result volume, empty-result behavior, or whether availability reflects real-time capacity on an open-world system.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the search scope, followed by the workflow hint and the endpoint in a compact trailing clause. No filler or repetition.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape entirely implicit — an agent cannot tell whether slots come back as flat timestamps, per-professional groupings, or enriched with unit names, which matters for deciding whether to chain into create_appointment directly. The input side is adequately covered by the rich schema, so this is the main remaining 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 description coverage is 90% and the schema already documents the kind enum, required-when-kind constraints for specialty_id/procedure_id, and the unit_id 0-means-matriz convention. The description's 'optionally for one professional, unit or insurance' is accurate but only restates the optional filters; the age range parameters are never mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — free appointment times — plus the two ways to search (specialty or procedure) and the date window. An agent can immediately distinguish it from feegow_list_appointments (existing bookings) and from the create/reschedule siblings.

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?

'Use before feegow_create_appointment' gives an explicit sequencing rule that routes the agent into a two-step flow. It stops short of exclusions — it never says this is not for checking already-booked slots (feegow_list_appointments) — but the positive guidance is clear.

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