Find open slots

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and does not hold or book the slot, plus a sort order (earliest first) and a default window. It omits pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter and the shape of returned data.

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 short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the default and the read-only guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, default range and read-only safety, which is a good core. It leaves gaps around pagination (limit cap of 100) and the result shape an agent would need to interpret the response.

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 only 17% (just tag documented), so the description must compensate. It conveys meaning for the date range (from/to) and the practitioner-or-schedule scoping (practitionerId/scheduleId) plus the 7-day default, but says nothing about limit, and adds no syntax detail beyond the schema's patterns.

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 (find) and resource (free/open slots) with scope: date range, earliest first, for one practitioner or one schedule. This is clearly distinguishable from fhir_list_appointments, but the description never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Provides context ('for one practitioner or one schedule', defaults to next 7 days) but never states when to use this over fhir_list_appointments or fhir_find_followups_due, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the scoping constraints rather than explicit.

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