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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description simply repeats 'Read-only', which earns no credit. It adds the underlying GraphQL query signature but discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, default date behavior (the 'future' default lives only in the schema), or result shape. With no output schema, behavioral disclosure is thin.

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: purpose and filter dimensions first, then the read-only and GraphQL details. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required args, the description covers what can be asked but not what comes back — no mention of pagination, ordering, or result fields. Adequate but with a visible gap for an agent planning to consume the results.

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 is documented with its accepted values in the schema itself. The description's GraphQL argument list merely restates the same names without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List appointments') and enumerates the filter dimensions available, which clearly separates it from the singular sibling healthie_get_appointment. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by patient, provider, date range, time-filter or status' implies when the filters matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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