square_appointments_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the content scope (screens and sign-in link) and the recommended call ordering, which implies a non-destructive read. It does not state whether the response is prose, links, or structured data, nor whether any sign-in or session state is required before the returned link is usable.

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 compact sentence pairs the scope list with the imperative "Call this first," and the ordering instruction is front-loaded at the end where it reads as the operative takeaway. No filler or restated name/title.

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 one-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the guide contains and when to invoke it. It is still thin on what an agent receives back and whether the task argument materially alters that output, which matters because the whole point of the tool is to hand off procedural knowledge to the sibling action tools.

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 the single "task" parameter is already documented as "what you want done, in your words." The description never references the parameter or hints at how phrasing the task changes the returned guidance, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and lands at the high-coverage baseline.

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 names the concrete subject (Square Appointments screens, staff calendars, services, booking requests) and the payload it offers (a how-to plus the sign-in link). It is clear this is an orientation/help resource rather than an action tool, which separates it from the click/open/read siblings. It never uses an explicit verb like "returns" or "explains", so the agent must infer that this yields documentation text rather than performing an operation.

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?

"Call this first" is a direct, unambiguous ordering instruction relative to the sibling tools, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. There is no when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative for cases where the agent already knows the flow, so it falls short of a 5.

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