Get a ChurchTools appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the stored-vs-calculated date distinction and the fact that one id spans a whole series. It still says nothing about not-found handling or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical is dense but carries real information about series semantics. It stays tight, though the parenthetical slightly burdens readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by describing what is returned (stored data plus calculated dates, series recurrence details). For a two-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a brief note on lookup failures would complete the picture.

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 calendarId and appointmentId, including the note that one id covers every occurrence, are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Shows) and resource (appointment) and even clarifies scope for a series (first occurrence, repeat pattern, exceptions, additional dates). It is clearly a singular fetch rather than a list, but it never names or differentiates from ct_list_appointments or the other appointment siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage by describing what a retrieval returns, and the 'for a series' clause hints that this is the tool for inspecting recurrence detail. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus ct_list_appointments, no prerequisite conditions, and no exclusions, so 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.