conduyt_appointment_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the 366-day span clamp, the start-vs-booked basis semantics, how reschedules are counted (attendee, in-app user, synced calendar), and notes that the report definition is returned as `definition`. It omits the read-only/safety profile and any indication of result size or rate limits, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core definition and contains almost no filler, but it is effectively one very long semicolon-chained sentence, which makes the midpoint hard to parse. Slightly more structure (or splitting the breakdown enumeration out) would improve scanability without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description specifies the returned content well: status buckets, held/no-show outcome and show rate, cancellations, reschedules, upcoming, and all breakdown axes, plus the echoed `definition`. Remaining gaps are output volume/pagination and permissions, which matter for a report tool but are not addressed.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that basis=start is the default and what each mode means for the window, and that channel/lead-source groupings exist. The 366-day clamping behavior attached to from/to is not in the schema and is useful, though the `sources` filter values are left to 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?

It names a specific resource and mode ('Appointment report: every appointment whose time ... falls in the window') and enumerates the aggregation dimensions returned (status, assigned user, calendar/booking page, lead source, channel, day), which implicitly separates it from conduyt_list_appointments. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the reporting-vs-listing distinction, but the verb+resource 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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a window, a dual 'basis' mode, and the 366-day clamp signal it is the analytics path, but there is no explicit 'use this when you want aggregates, use list_appointments when you want rows' or any prerequisite/auth guidance. An agent can infer the context but is given no exclusions or alternatives.

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