Free appointment slots

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

Annotations declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing filtering behavior (only days with free times are returned, past times today are dropped), the timezone of returned HH:MM values (Tehran local), and the meaning/bound of `bookable_until` (~30 days ahead). It stops short of describing pagination or failure modes when a service has no availability.

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 core purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with caveats and the booking note trailing. It is tight overall, though the SMS-login/URL sentence is slightly tangential to invoking this read tool.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add the non-structured context it does provide: which days are omitted, timezone, text-consultation caveat, and the booking prerequisite. What is missing is minimal, mostly failure/no-availability behavior.

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 days/start_date/consultation_id are already documented in the schema, including examples and formats. The description adds contextual framing about timezone and the fact that times are start times (for phone/video, the call start), but supplies no syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Free appointment times of one service', and enumerates the service kinds (office visit, phone/video call, clinic offer, lab admission). Combined with the sibling names (dt_doctor, dt_offer, dt_center), an agent can tell this is the availability-lookup tool rather than a listing tool.

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?

It gives useful operating context — text consultations usually have no slots, and booking requires an SMS login on doctoreto.com — but it never states when to call this versus dt_doctor/dt_offer, nor the prerequisites that must hold before calling (e.g. needing a consultation_id already fetched). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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