insync_list_appointments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results span both upcoming and past visits and includes expected copay, which is useful. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, ordering, or authentication context, so it adds only modest value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The second sentence adds genuine scope information rather than restating the first. Slightly longer than it needs to be with the 'therapy, psychiatry and any other' clause, but every part earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the fields produced. For a zero-required-parameter read tool with fully documented params and clear annotations, this is nearly complete; only ordering and pagination semantics are unaddressed.

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%, so page, page_size, view and when are already fully documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the upcoming/past axis of the 'when' parameter but adds nothing about 'view' shapes or paging constraints. Baseline is appropriate.

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 ('List the patient's appointments / visits') and enumerates the returned fields (date, time, provider, facility, visit type, status, expected copay), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It also scopes the domain (therapy, psychiatry, any scheduled visit). It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling insync_get_appointment_calendar, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when the tool is appropriate (listing upcoming or past visits) and the schema's 'when' enum makes the split explicit. However, it never says when to prefer this over insync_get_appointment_calendar, insync_find_appointment_slots, or insync_request_appointment. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving routing to inference from names alone.

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