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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as accepting bare course codes, interpreting activity kinds, and noting that exam dates from the catalog do not mark deferred sittings. This adds useful context beyond a simple 'check conflicts' statement.

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 reasonably concise, covering purpose, usage hints, and behavioral notes in a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main action and adds specific details without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity of checking conflicts with activity kinds and exam dates, and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of conflicts). Without that, an agent may not know how to process the output. Additional completeness is needed.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter info: 'Accepts bare course codes' implies format but doesn't explain the 'year' parameter or the exact expected string format for course codes. More detail is needed to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool checks for clashing lecture/lab times and colliding exam dates for a set of NTNU courses. It specifies the scope (same year) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on conflict detection rather than general information retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('a clash check to run before registering for courses') and explains how to interpret conflict kinds. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for basic usage.

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