List Appointment Group Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful context by specifying that only users who reserved a slot are included. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or permission requirements, so it adds only modest transparency beyond the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and relevant qualifier ('who have reserved a slot') efficiently.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to use it, making it complete for its low complexity.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the parameter 'appointment_group_id' is already described as 'The appointment group ID.' The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('participants (users) who have reserved a slot in an appointment group'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_appointment_group_groups by specifying users rather than groups.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the list of user participants for a given appointment group. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for a simple read-only list operation.

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