report_appointment_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that it generates a summary, counts by status, and uses the /appointment/search endpoint with server-side date filtering. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequate. It does not explicitly mention that no data is modified, but the language 'generate' and 'counts' strongly suggests that.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a relevant implementation detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple summary tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the status categories, and that filtering is server-side. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), but that is likely evident from the tool's name and typical usage. The absence of an output schema is not a critical gap given the clear summary nature of the tool.

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 descriptions already cover startDate, endDate, and locationId with clear meanings (ISO 8601, filter by location, default to env var). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond noting server-side filtering, which is already implied by the date parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 clearly states the action ('Generate an appointment summary'), the resource ('appointment summary'), and the specific output ('Counts appointments by confirmation status (Confirmed/Declined/NoResponse)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_appointments, which would return raw appointment objects, and report_revenue_summary, which focuses on revenue.

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 implicit usage guidance by indicating that it produces a summary count rather than individual appointments, so an agent would infer to use this when needing aggregated counts by status. It also notes that filtering happens server-side via /appointment/search, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast when to use them.

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