get_appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the appointment data is returned in full, whether invalid IDs cause errors, or any authentication requirements. The description adds almost nothing beyond the verb itself.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and delivers the essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only intent), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about return values, error behavior, or the broader workflow, and does not reference sibling tools. It feels terse even for a simple tool, so it does not fully satisfy the completeness criterion.

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%: the property appointment_id is described as 'The IntakeQ appointment ID'. The tool description's 'by ID' merely repeats this. The baseline is 3 because the schema handles parameter documentation completely; the description does not add extra 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?

The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (a single appointment), and the qualifier (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_appointments (which lists multiple) and create/update_appointment (which mutate).

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 when you need a single appointment by its ID, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_appointments for browsing. It lacks the explicit referral to other tools that would earn a higher score.

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