List appointments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the required `appointments:read` scope and the specific types and statuses of appointments returned. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful information beyond them.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core function and relevant domain context, and the second states the auth requirement. Both sentences earn their place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

The description plus annotations and a well-documented schema give the agent the auth requirement, resource scope, and pagination parameters needed to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema and the exact response shape is left implicit, but for a read-only paginated list tool this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The input schema has full description coverage for all three parameters, including limits, defaults, cursor semantics, and mutual exclusivity. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries this dimension; the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'appointments,' and adds meaningful context about the two creation sources (by agents or directly) and the statuses returned. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from get_appointment by signaling a collection-oriented operation.

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 use case is implied by the verb 'List': an agent should call this when it needs a collection of appointments rather than a single one. However, the description does not explicitly mention get_appointment as the alternative for fetching a single appointment, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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