Get appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so there is no safety contradiction. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that read-only fetch, such as not-found behavior, authentication scope, or whether linked data is included. It is a minimal statement of the operation rather than a disclosure of behavioral traits.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that names the action, object, and key. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for such a simple 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly sufficient but leaves gaps: no explicit statement of what a caller receives, no error/not-found expectations, and no differentiation guidance among appointment-related siblings. It is adequate for a trivial get-by-id but not richly contextual.

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 one parameter (appointmentId) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description only says 'by id.' It does not explain the format, source, or semantics of the id beyond what the parameter name already conveys. The description therefore adds little parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single calendar appointment/event'), and a selection mechanism ('by id'). The word 'single' distinguishes it from plural/list sibling tools like ghl_get_calendar_events, so an agent can identify this as the point lookup.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative conditions. It does not tell the agent to prefer this tool over ghl_get_calendar_events or ghl_get_free_slots, nor when not to use it. This is implied at best by 'by id'.

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