List ChurchTools appointments

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. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the response shape and, usefully, the semantics of repeatId (0 = single occurrence, anything else = series), which is behavioral information an agent could not infer. Pagination and result-size limits are still unmentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by a short disambiguation pointer. The first sentence is long, but each clause (field list, repeatId semantics) carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining repeatId. Combined with annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, an agent has nearly everything needed; only pagination/limits and the meaning of the 'query' filter are left implicit.

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 the schema already documents to, from, query, and calendar_ids (including the note that ChurchTools still includes the 'to' day). The description restates the calendar/date-range inputs at a high level without adding format or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the occurrences of appointments'), the resource, and the scope (given calendars and date range), then enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ct_get_appointment, which fetches 'the whole appointment', so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to ct_get_appointment when the full appointment (not just occurrences) is needed, and the schema points to ct_list_calendars for obtaining calendar_ids. It does not address overlap with ct_list_events or state when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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