Find cross-account conflicts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the burden is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns conflicting pairs plus the exact overlap window. It does not, however, mention result limits or what happens when the account list is empty, which would round it out.

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 tight sentences: the purpose and scope come first, the illustrative example disambiguates rather than pads, and the return shape closes it out. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return value (conflicting pairs with overlap window), and the annotations plus the fully documented schema cover parameters and safety. An agent has everything needed to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents accounts filtering, ISO 8601 time range, timezone, and the include_same_account default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find events that overlap') and pins the scope to 'across different accounts', which is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like check_freebusy or list_all_events. The concrete example (personal doctor appointment colliding with a work meeting) removes any ambiguity about the operation's semantics.

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 cross-account scope implies when this tool is appropriate, but no sibling is named and no exclusion condition is given (e.g. 'use check_freebusy instead when you only care about a single account/slot availability'). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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