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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring this a safe read, the description adds useful scope context: it returns both past and scheduled (future) visits spanning class and appointment attendance, and cites the underlying endpoint GET /client/clientvisits. It does not, however, describe return shape or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and the scope of returned records, then the endpoint reference. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only, 8-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporal scope, and the result type (class/appointment attendance). It is nearly complete, missing only a note on result format/pagination volume, which the schema partially covers via offset/limit descriptions.

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 every parameter (limit, order, offset, dates, unpaids_only, cross_regional_lookup, client_id) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only re-states the date-range and unpaid filters, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas is correct.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List a client's ... visits') and scopes it precisely ('past and scheduled visits (class and appointment attendance) in a date range'). This is clearly client-scoped, which helps distinguish it from the class-oriented sibling mindbody_get_class_visits, but it never names or explicitly routes away from any sibling, so it stays at a 4.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer 'use this to see one client's attendance history'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g. mindbody_get_class_visits for class-level attendance, or mindbody_list_client_memberships for membership data). The 'optionally only unpaid ones' note hints at a filtering use case but is not framed as guidance.

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