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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 60-day cap, the 'three nearest clinics' fallback around near/place, and the fact that no free day yields a waitlist_url. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core resource/scoping information is front-loaded. The grammar is telegraphic ('Which days have a free time'), which is efficient but slightly harder to parse.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema present, the description covers the key constraints an agent needs (option_id anchor, scope of clinics, practitioner choice, waitlist fallback). Return format needn't be explained since an output schema exists. Minor gaps in ordering/pagination keep it from a 5.

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 the required baseline is 3. The description restates a few parameter relationships (three nearest clinics, add_on_ids lengthening the visit) that the schema already documents, adding little new semantic meaning beyond what structured fields provide.

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 resource (days with free time) tied to a specific option_id, and adds scope detail (clinic_id / three nearest clinics, one practitioner or anyone). It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling find_free_times, leaving the day-vs-time distinction to inference.

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?

It provides usage conditions (up to 60 days, clinic_id OR three nearest to near/place, practitioner_id vs anyone), which is more than nothing. But it gives no explicit 'use this instead of find_free_times' routing and no exclusion guidance, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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