Next Appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. It adds useful context about user scoping and optional group filtering, but does not describe return shape, behavior when no appointment exists, or how 'next' is determined. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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 communicates purpose, user scope, and optional filtering 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, user scope, and group filtering. It does not spell out the return shape, but the tool name and 'Get' make the output inferable, and the absence of an output schema is a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with 'Limit to specific appointment group IDs'. The description's 'all (or specified)' reinforces the optional array's meaning but adds no syntax or detailed format beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current user's next upcoming appointment'. It also clarifies scope ('across all (or specified) appointment groups'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_appointment_groups and get_appointment_group.

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 phrase 'current user's next upcoming' establishes a clear use case: fetching the authenticated user's next appointment. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the intended context is clear and distinct from appointment-group management tools.

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