Get appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: timestamps are wall clock in the business's time zone, the payload includes balance remaining after the total, and appointment notes are returned.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the second sentence elaborates on the returned fields. There is mild repetition between the two ('client, services, team member' appear in both), but every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 is the only place return values are described, and it does that adequately: status, times with time zone semantics, client, per-service team member and length, totals and balance, and notes. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is sufficient to call 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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that the id comes from list_appointments and constraining it to digits. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('One appointment') and enumerates the fields returned (client, services, team member, times, status, price, notes), which distinguishes it clearly from list-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming list_appointments as the companion tool inside the description itself, though the schema covers that linkage.

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 implied rather than stated: 'One appointment' suggests this is the single-record read rather than a list, and the schema notes the id comes from list_appointments. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative in the description text.

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