get_appointments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation, the ID limit, and the API endpoint, but does not explain behavior for invalid IDs, partial failures, or response payload structure. Tier hint 'readonly-owner' adds some context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and includes useful endpoint and tier metadata. However, the lack of parameter details is a gap, though it remains concise for its size.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the ID parameter and the general purpose. It omits behavior for missing IDs, parameter implications, and the response format, making it only partially complete.

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 0%, and the description only adds meaning to appointmentIDs by noting the 1000-ID limit. The parameters includeTargetPests and includeCancellationReason are left completely unexplained, providing no clarity beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full appointment records using appointment IDs, with a specific limit of up to 1000 IDs. This distinguishes it from search-based tools like search_appointments which likely query by criteria rather than IDs.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use when you have appointment IDs and need full records. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_appointments or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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