Next Appointment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds that the tool operates across all or specified appointment groups, which is not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior like what happens when no next appointment exists, or whether it returns a single item or a list (though singular 'the next' suggests one). This is minimal extra context beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, scope, and optional filter. There is no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured, with the core purpose first and the filtering option immediately appended.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It explains what the tool does and how to limit scope. Minor omissions—such as behavior when no appointment exists, or whether the result is an object or array—are not critical given the simplicity and the annotations. The description suffices for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%: the only parameter, appointment_group_ids, has a description ('Limit to specific appointment group IDs'). The tool description echoes this with 'across all (or specified) appointment groups'. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds no new semantic value, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves the current user's next upcoming appointment, with an explicit scope restriction ('across all (or specified) appointment groups'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_appointment_groups (which lists groups) and get_appointment_group (which retrieves a specific group's details). The wording unambiguously communicates what the tool does.

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 implies usage: you call this when you need the next upcoming appointment, potentially limited to specific appointment groups. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, but the phrase 'across all (or specified) appointment groups' indirectly indicates filtering capability. Given the large sibling set, this is adequate but could be improved by naming comparable tools like get_upcoming_events.

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