list_appointments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond those annotations: results are scoped to in-chat bookings and are ordered newest first. It omits pagination behavior (cursor paging, default page size of 25) even though that is the main operational trait of a list endpoint.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second is a sentence fragment that packs ordering and scope together, which is efficient but makes the scope constraint slightly harder to parse than a full clause would be.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is in structured fields. Still missing is how pagination terminates and whether the "in-chat bookings" scope means non-chat appointments are excluded entirely, both of which affect correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 limit, status, starting_after and conversation_id are each documented in the schema, including the default of 25, the 1-100 range, the next_cursor convention, and the note that status is unvalidated. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the ordering claim, so 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 concrete verb and resource ("List appointments") plus a scope qualifier ("In-chat bookings") and an ordering ("newest first"), which distinguishes it from get_appointment and book_appointment. It stops short of saying explicitly that it is the enumeration counterpart to get_appointment, and "In-chat bookings" is left slightly ambiguous as to whether it is a hard filter or just a hint.

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 word "List" plus the plural resource implies the browse/enumerate case, and the ordering hint supports that. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of using get_appointment for a single record, and no statement of prerequisites or auth requirements.

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