list_appointments

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the required filter constraint, which is key behavioral information. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite a page parameter in the schema), default page size, or what the response contains. This is a partial disclosure for a list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the essential usage constraint. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately concise.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain pagination (e.g., how the page parameter works, result limits), whether multiple filters are combined (AND/OR), or what response format to expect. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the behavioral context around listing is incomplete.

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% for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical cross-parameter semantics by specifying that at least one of clientId, startDate, or endDate must be provided—this is not evident from the schema, which marks none as required. This goes beyond what the schema offers, justifying a 4.

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 'List appointments' clearly identifies the action and resource. The follow-up constraint about required filters adds scope, distinguishing it from get_appointment (which retrieves a single appointment). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_notes or list_invoices, though the resource name is unambiguous.

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: you should call this when you want appointments and must provide at least one of clientId, startDate, or endDate. It does not state when to prefer an alternative (e.g., get_appointment for a specific appointment) or provide exclusions, so it relies on the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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