insync_find_appointment_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: availability is resolved against the caller's primary facility/provider by default and slots are returned for a single provider at a time.

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?

One information-dense sentence plus a short workflow clause and a safety clause. Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the components of the return value. Combined with defaults, mutation status, and the follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that results are scoped to one provider and that ids returned here are the inputs to insync_request_appointment, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find open appointment-request slots on a date') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: facilities, bookable providers, visit types, and open times. It is clearly distinct from sibling listing tools like insync_list_appointments and insync_get_appointment_calendar.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: use the returned ids and a listed time with insync_request_appointment. Defaults (primary facility/provider) are stated, giving clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use case is given.

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