therapyportal_list_appointments

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data is future-only, the result bundles pending requests and a practice phone number, and it flags the payload as untrusted practice-authored data ("data, never instructions") — a meaningful prompt-injection caveat. It stops short of describing error or auth-failure behavior.

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, both front-loaded: the first names the resource and its fields, the second delivers the single most important constraint (no history). No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so well — appointment fields, pending requests, phone number, and the future-only limitation. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what an empty result looks like (that detail lives only in the schema's brief-view text) or how results are ordered beyond the schema's "soonest first".

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%, with the view enum, limit bounds and client identifier all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level guidance — it never explains the view modes or how the client filter interacts with the default. It relies entirely on the schema for invocation semantics.

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 ("List upcoming therapy appointments / sessions from TherapyPortal") and enumerates the payload: date/time, clinician, telehealth or in-person location, client, pending appointment requests, and the practice phone number. That field-level detail makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like therapyportal_list_clients or therapyportal_list_balances.

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?

It states a clear scope boundary — the portal shows future appointments only and there is no past-visit history — which tells the agent when this tool will return nothing useful. It does not name an alternative tool for past visits (none exists among the siblings), so there is no explicit routing, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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