simplepractice_list_appointments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context around status filtering and pagination, but it does not disclose pageSize behavior, defaults, or response shape, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. 'Pages by number' is concise but slightly cryptic, and the opening phrase is a fragment rather than a full purpose statement, preventing a top score.

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?

This is adequate for a read-only list tool: it covers the resource, status semantics, and pagination, while schema defaults handle some missing detail. However, pageSize is unexplained and there is no output schema or description of what the returned appointments contain, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is only 50%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies the status enum meanings and mentions pagination by number, but the pageSize parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies the resource as Client Portal appointments and explains the key status distinction between scheduled and requested results. The verb is implied via the tool name and the word 'returns' rather than explicitly stated as 'list/get', so it stops just short of a 5.

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 explicit, actionable guidance on when to use the 'scheduled' versus 'requested' status values, which is the main decision an agent faces. It does not discuss alternative sibling tools, but the resource scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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