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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuine value beyond that—resource permissions depend on the API key—but says nothing about pagination behavior or how results are bounded, which matters for a 100-cap pageSize list.

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 the purpose. The access sentence is slightly boilerplate but earns some place by flagging variable permissions. No padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back; 'source labels' gives only a rough idea of the returned shape. Combined with the undescribed pagination parameters, an agent knows the intent but not how to page or parse 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?

Only shopId is documented in the schema (33% coverage); page and pageSize carry no descriptions or defaults explanation in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining pagination semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 and action: reviewing the shop's configured customer and appointment source labels. The resource noun distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings (appointments, bays, customers, etc.), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus sibling list tools, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. 'Read-only' hints at usage context but is not guidance.

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