get_officer_appointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('get details') but provides no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly 'details' includes. It adds minimal value beyond stating the operation type.

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 sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it is too sparse to be fully informative, making it a borderline case. A score of 3 reflects adequate conciseness but insufficient completeness for the purpose.

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 presence of sibling tools like 'get_officer_appointments_list' and no output schema, the description lacks context needed for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain what data is returned, how it relates to the list endpoint, or any constraints (e.g., company number must be valid). The description is incomplete for a retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add any additional context or constraints regarding the parameters (e.g., format, validation rules, or how they relate to the response). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves details of a specific officer appointment using a verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific officer appointment'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_officer_appointments_list', which likely returns a list rather than a single appointment. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., needing to first obtain an appointment ID from the list tool), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description gives no usage advice.

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