Get appointment

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by defining the returned semantics: 'note' is staff-only while 'client_note' is client-visible, and 'can' enumerates the currently permitted actions (cancel, change, confirm, decline, no_show). Those are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Field list is front-loaded and the second paragraph adds semantics rather than repeating verbatim, though it does re-list the same return fields (services, staff, times, price, client, notes) at some length. Minor redundancy, no wasted 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 has to describe returns, and it does so adequately for a single-record fetch, including the ambiguous note fields and the 'can' capability list. It stops short of stating failure behavior or whether the appointment must exist or be accessible to the caller.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the ID comes from list_appointments. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line 'One appointment: services, staff, times, price, client and notes' names the resource and its scope (single record) with the fields returned, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_appointments. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the drill-down call for an appointment_id obtained elsewhere (the schema notes 'Appointment ID from list_appointments'). There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_appointments or when-not clause.

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