Get Appointment Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, the description's claim that the result 'including its time slots and participant counts' contradicts the schema where these are only included via the optional 'include' parameter. This misstatement misleads about default behavior, a notable gap given no additional behavioral details are provided.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and key details without any filler words. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and strong schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient, but the misleading 'including' statement omits the optional nature of the include parameter. There is no output schema, so a clearer indication of what the base response contains (absent include) would improve completeness. It also does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions, leaving some context gaps.

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 schema already has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for both 'include' and 'appointment_group_id'. The description adds minimal value beyond referencing 'time slots and participant counts', which are covered by the enum values. It does not clarify that these are optional or default behavior, so it neither enhances nor detracts significantly from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets a single appointment group by ID, explicitly distinguishing it from listing all groups. The phrase 'including its time slots and participant counts' slightly misleads by implying these are always returned, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 purpose implies use for retrieving a specific group, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like list_appointment_groups or create/update/delete. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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