Check a set of sections for conflicts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating it builds a weekly timetable, totals units, and detects meeting-time and final-exam conflicts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and a clear use-case. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and invocation.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains expected outputs (timetable, unit total, conflict reports) and context (validation before registration). This covers the essential behavior for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (term and sectionCodes) with examples and accepted formats, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 the tool's function: given a term and section codes, it builds a timetable, totals units, and reports conflicts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_courses or find_sections by focusing on schedule validation rather than 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to validate a proposed schedule before registration.' It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough to infer.

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