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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a GET endpoint and that the set of statuses is a fixed enumeration (booked, confirmed, no-show, cancelled...), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, caching, or whether the list is tenant-configurable.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The content is front-loaded: what the tool returns first, then what it's for.

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 no-param read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient — it names the resource and illustrates the returned values. Without an output schema, a brief note on the return shape (list of id/name pairs) and whether the list is stable would have made it complete.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly takes no arguments, and the description doesn't imply required filters that would confuse an agent.

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 resource (appointment statuses) and what it returns (ids and names), with concrete example values. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it relates to (feegow_update_appointment_status, feegow_list_appointments), but 'used to filter and update appointments' gestures at the relationship.

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?

'used to filter and update appointments' implies the usage context — fetch status ids before filtering or updating — but never says explicitly to call this before updating a status, nor does it state exclusions or name the alternative tools. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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