List appointments

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses ordering (latest first), row granularity (one row per booked service), inclusion of cancelled appointments, wall-clock timezone handling, and pagination via next_cursor. The filter limitation on the first 100 rows is an important non-obvious behavior.

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 purpose and ordering, then describes return fields, pagination, and the filter caveat. It is slightly dense and repeats some field-level detail already available in the schema, but every sentence contributes useful behavioral context.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, it covers return fields, ordering, status inclusion, timezone semantics, pagination, and the important filter-scope limitation. An agent has enough information to call and interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description still adds meaningful context by explaining that status/client/team_member filters only cover the first 100 rows and that pagination uses next_cursor, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 ('Appointments in a date range') plus the fields returned, and anchors behavior to 'Sales > Appointments' ordering. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_appointment or list_sales.

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 concrete usage caveat: status, team member and client filters only apply to the first 100 rows of the date range, so busy ranges should be narrowed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for single-appointment lookup, but the operational guidance is clear.

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