List appointments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It does add genuinely new behavioral facts: the 31-day maximum window, inclusive end-day semantics, ISO 8601 timestamps carrying the company's UTC offset, the enumeration of possible status values, and that the staff filter is a restriction rather than an expansion. The only notable gap is pagination/result-size behavior for a potentially long range.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the purpose and field list come first, followed by the constraints and return shape. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, which is slightly less front-loaded than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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 fully carries the return contract: entity fields, timestamp format, status vocabulary and filter semantics. Combined with the documented range ceiling, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that both from and to are included as whole days and that staff narrows results by full name (a filter, not a lookup key).

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 the resource precisely (Scheduler job appointments) and enumerates the returned fields (job, customer, staff, start/end, notes, status), so an agent knows exactly what it is querying. It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearby list_jobs or schedule_appointment siblings, leaving the boundary between 'jobs' and 'appointments' to inference.

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 by the date-range framing; there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of list_jobs, get_job or schedule_appointment, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer it is a read/list operation over a bounded window, but the routing decision is left unstated.

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