get_appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on missing-record behavior, no fields returned, no permissions. With annotations the bar is lower, but nothing extra is contributed.

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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient but so sparse that brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing the returned appointment or error behavior, which would matter given there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with one required integer 'id', and the description's 'by id' merely echoes it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics and the description adds no format or lookup nuance.

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 pairs a generic verb with the resource and adds cardinality ('One appointment by id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_appointments. However, it is close to a restatement of the name/title and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_appointments or get_availability.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative for looking up appointments by other criteria, and no mention of what happens if the id is unknown. The agent must infer everything except the single-id retrieval case.

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