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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it is cursor-paged, it exposes customer contact details (a privacy/data-sensitivity signal), and it maps to GET /visits. Return format specifics remain unstated but pagination and data sensitivity are useful additions.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its two flavors, followed by returned fields, filters, then behavioral notes. No filler, though the long enumeration of returned fields is heavy and could be trimmed.

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 14-param read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates returned fields, notes cursor pagination (matching start_after/next_start_after in the schema), and flags customer contact details. The one real gap is that it never routes the agent toward or away from search_visits when both could plausibly serve a lookup.

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?

With 14 params at 57% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming the filter dimensions (location, state, tag, customer, service, resource, booking date, created/updated date) and by clarifying that booking date is local time, distinguishing it from created/updated date which the schema covers separately. It does not account for external_customer_id, limit or desc, so coverage is good but not complete.

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 (List) plus resource (visits) and disambiguates the resource itself: waitlist entries (people in line) and bookings (appointments). It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what a visit contains. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling waitwhile_search_visits, leaving the List-vs-Search boundary implicit.

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 lists what can be filtered by (location, state, tag, customer, service, resource, booking/created/updated date), which implies the use case of retrieving and narrowing visits. It never states when to prefer this over search_visits or get_visit, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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