square_appointments_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does identify the three things inspected, which signals a non-destructive inspection, but it never states that the call is read-only, what happens on failure, or what the caller learns when the account or connection is not ready.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the list of verified items is packed into a compact colon-separated clause. Nothing in it could be removed without losing scope information.

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 and no annotations, so the description should at minimum characterize what a readiness check returns (pass/fail per item, error text, etc.). It names the three checks but leaves the response shape entirely unstated for what is a pure diagnostic tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The enumerated checks give useful context about what the parameterless call actually probes.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the resources verified: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the Square Appointments connection. That is clearly distinct from the sibling UI-action tools (click, close, open, read, type), though the description never itself names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

Phrasing it as 'Check that ... are ready' implies the diagnostic-before-use use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no condition for choosing it over a sibling is stated. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight readiness probe.

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