sis_appointments

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at returned content (week range and occupied slots) but says nothing about whose appointments these are, whether authentication or authorization is required, or how sensitive counseling data is handled — a notable gap for a personal health-related resource.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded in parentheses; nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but it is well structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and one line is not enough. It omits who the appointments belong to, the response shape, and any privacy or permission considerations for a counseling-data tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for parameter-free tools applies. The parenthetical does clarify what the implicit scope of the result is without any input.

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 and resource (retrieving this week's counseling/psychology appointments) and adds scope details (week range, occupied slots). However, it does not distinguish this tool from plausible siblings such as calendar_week or sis_schedule, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to call for weekly schedule data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent under what circumstances to prefer this over the many calendar/scheduling siblings.

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