list_appointments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool lists appointments, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it is side-effect-free, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or potential failure modes. This lack of explicit behavioral detail is a significant 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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It avoids vague marketing language and directly states what the tool does and a key implementation nuance, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits some contextual details that would help an agent fully understand the tool. For example, it does not mention what the response structure looks like, whether the list is ordered, or how pagination variables interact (e.g., whether skip/limit are mandatory for large result sets). Given the absence of an output schema, this lack of return-shape information leaves a moderate 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?

Although the schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that date-filtered queries are routed to a specific endpoint and that the range is applied server-side. This clarifies the behavior of the startDate and endDate parameters, going beyond the schema's simple 'Filter by...' descriptions. The other parameters (skip, limit, customerId, locationId) are adequately described by the schema and need no extra explanation.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('appointments from Shopmonkey'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions filtering and pagination, which are key features that distinguish it from single-item retrieval tools like get_appointment.

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 explains that filtering and pagination are supported, and it gives a specific implementation detail about date-filtered queries going through the /appointment/search endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_appointment for a single appointment or create/update for mutations, leaving the agent to infer the collection-focused use case.

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