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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/appointments:list) and confirms time formatting, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or result-size limits even though page_token/page_size exist.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by filters and format note; nothing is padded. The trailing API endpoint line is the only sentence of debatable value, though it aids debugging.

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, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description should explain the paginated result shape and how to iterate pages. It covers filtering adequately but leaves return structure and paging semantics to the caller's inference.

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 coverage is 70%, so most parameters are self-documenting. The description names the main filter groups (start time range, status, customers, pets) and the RFC 3339 format, but omits business_ids, updated_after, and the paging parameters, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource ("List appointments of a company") and enumerates the filter dimensions, so it is clearly a filtered-list tool rather than a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly name how it differs from moego_get_appointment or moego_list_appointment_notes, which keeps it off a 5.

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 description only says what can be filtered; it never states when to reach for this tool versus moego_get_appointment (single record) or the notes lists, and offers no guidance on paging through large result sets. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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