List my appointments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and cross-server reach are already covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default filtering behavior (only upcoming pending/scheduled) and the ordering (soonest first), which an agent needs to predict output. It does not describe output shape, but no output schema exists so that's a minor gap.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then default behavior, then usage guidance. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 simple one-optional-param read tool with annotations covering safety and openness, the description supplies scope, default filtering, ordering, and a concrete use case. It omits return field descriptions, but with no output schema that's a reasonable omission for this simplicity level.

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%, with include_past fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'only upcoming pending or scheduled by default' overlaps with the schema's default behavior but adds slightly more semantic detail about what 'default' means. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States the specific resource (appointments of the configured customer account), scope (across every Vitta business), and ordering (soonest first). The default filter (upcoming pending/scheduled) and the cross-business scope clearly distinguish it from siblings like book_appointment or find_available_slots.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: answer 'when is my appointment?' and retrieve appointment_id for cancel_appointment. This is a clear when-to-use signal. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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