feegow_list_appointments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a read-only operation via HTTP GET, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a list endpoint, basic transparency is met but could be richer.

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 concise at two sentences: the first states purpose and filters; the second provides the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on response format, pagination, sorting, or whether all filters are optional. It does not mention the return structure (e.g., list of appointment objects). Given no annotations, additional context would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the filter categories (e.g., 'data_start/data_end no formato yyyy-mm-dd', 'profissional', 'unidade', 'paciente', 'status', 'grupo_procedimento'). This maps directly to parameters and clarifies date formatting. The schema coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates well for many of the 9 parameters.

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's purpose as listing/searching appointments ('Lista/busca agendamentos') and lists specific filter criteria (period, professional, unit, patient, status, procedure group). It also provides the HTTP GET endpoint, which distinguishes it from mutation tools like create_appointment or cancel_appointment.

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?

The description implies usage through the listed filters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., create_appointment, available_schedule). No guidance on when not to use it is given. The endpoint suffix 'search' hints at its query nature, but more explicit direction would improve clarity.

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