List appointments

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: start order, maximum 31-day span, inclusion of unconfirmed requests, business time zone, empty client for walk-ins, and one row per multi-service appointment. These details help the agent interpret results correctly without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then adds only useful behavioral details in a compact sequence. Each sentence contributes either scope, ordering, time zone, edge-case handling, or a sibling-tool distinction.

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 still explains the returned row shape, ordering, time zone behavior, walk-in edge case, and multi-service representation. Combined with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 from, to, and staff_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 31-day range limit but does not add filtering semantics or usage details for staff_id beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific resource (appointments) and scope (date range with client, service, staff, time, and status). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_appointment by explaining that get_appointment returns prices and notes, which are not returned here.

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 gives a clear context for use: listing the calendar between two days, including unconfirmed requests, and points to get_appointment when price and note details are needed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as find_open_slots for availability checks.

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