List appointments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the result ordering ('soonest first') and the mandatory-filter guard, and 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination/limit behavior, result volume, or what the response contains.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the filter/scope statement first, the hard constraint second. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing 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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 29% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers filtering and ordering but omits pagination/limit behavior and the shape of the returned collection, which an agent would need to page results correctly.

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 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does name patientId, practitionerId, from and tag and explains the required-one-of relationship, but it never mentions the 'to' bound or the 'limit' parameter, leaving two parameters with no semantics anywhere.

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 (list) and resource (appointments) plus the filter dimensions (patient, practitioner, status, date range) and result ordering. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like fhir_find_open_slots and fhir_find_followups_due by being the general appointment listing, though it never names those alternatives.

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 gives one hard usage constraint — at least one of patientId, practitionerId, from or tag is required — which is genuinely useful and prevents an unbounded query. However it never says when to prefer this tool over fhir_find_open_slots or fhir_find_followups_due, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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