contacts_get_appointments_for_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not state that the tool returns a list of appointments, whether it includes past/future appointments, or how it handles missing contacts. Given that the annotations cover safety, the description's lack of additional behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no redundant information. It earns its place by stating the essential purpose without fluff, though it borders on being too terse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is functional but not rich. It does not explain the response format, any filtering options, or potential error conditions. For a simple retrieval tool with annotations providing safety context, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The schema description for contactId ('Contact Id') provides 100% coverage, and the tool name itself clearly indicates the parameter's role. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already communicates. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Appointments for Contact' clearly specifies a verb (Get) and resource (Appointments) scoped to a contact. It immediately distinguishes this tool from other contacts tools like contacts_get_contact or calendars_get_appointment, which focus on different entities. The purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and context, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.

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