Get schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the default range, sort order, embedded job/client data, and critically that filtering happens server-side on visit start time. It omits auth requirements and pagination mechanics despite limit/cursor parameters, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most important scoping facts (resource, default range) are front-loaded. The date-format sentence partly duplicates the schema, but it is brief and harmless.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand on its own, and it does describe what comes back (visits with job and client) and how filtering works. It stops short of documenting pagination behavior or access requirements, which an agent paging through results would benefit from.

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 100%, so all four parameters (from, to, limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the server-side filtering semantics and restates defaults and the YYYY-MM-DD format, but does not explain cursor paging flow or how limit interacts with the cursor.

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 names a specific resource (visits/appointments) along with the scope (date range), ordering (sorted by start time), and the included relations (job and client). It is clearly a schedule/visit-listing tool, but it never states an explicit verb and doesn't differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools like search_jobs or get_client_details.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to see visits/appointments over a date range, and the default window (today through +7 days) is given. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_jobs, no exclusions, and no prerequisites, so the agent must infer the selection rationale.

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