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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that results include the associated customer, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default result limits, or whether all supplied filters are ANDed together.

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 functional sentences with the scope and filters front-loaded, followed by the endpoint mapping. The 'Shopmonkey: POST /v3/appointment/search' line is low-value for an agent that never calls HTTP directly, but it is short and does not distract.

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 an 11-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (appointments with their customer) and the filter space, and the schema fully documents every parameter including paging and sort. Only the interaction rules between filters and pagination defaults are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description's filter list (date range, customer, order, technician) maps onto some parameters but omits paging (skip/limit), sort, and includeUnassigned, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search the appointment calendar') and enumerates the filter axes (date range, customer, order, technician). It is clearly distinct from write siblings like shopmonkey_create_appointment, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other list/search tools such as shopmonkey_search_customers or shopmonkey_list_orders.

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 by the listed filter dimensions: an agent can infer it should use this tool when it has any of those keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of how filters combine, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_order or list_customer_orders when appointments are wanted in an order context).

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