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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the concrete return contents and the REST endpoint mapping, but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or auth requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this modest added context merits a 3.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is returned and closes with the endpoint reference. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data (locations, services with duration/price, practitioners). It is nearly complete for this simple parameterless GET, though it omits any note on response shape or pagination.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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?

The description names a specific verb (list) and enumerates the exact resources returned — locations, services with duration and price, and practitioners — plus the underlying endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like intakeq_list_practitioners, which covers only one of the three collections.

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?

It states the motivating context — 'the ids you need to create an appointment' — which implicitly positions it as a prerequisite step before intakeq_create_appointment. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named, so it falls 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.