find_danger_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail: concrete thresholds (lunch window 12-2pm, back-to-back stretches over 3 hours) and that results carry severity levels. However, it never states whether the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or how calendar_ids resolution behaves, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 content is front-loaded and organized into Detects/Args/Returns sections, with the purpose stated first in one line. It is slightly verbose because the Args and Returns blocks partially restate the schema, but nothing is wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be fully explained, and the description appropriately covers detection rules, parameter formats, and the severity-bearing output. Combined with the detailed threshold list, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though read-only/permission semantics remain unstated.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for start_date and end_date, and that calendar_ids is a list defaulting to ["primary"]. That adds format and default semantics beyond the bare schema titles, only missing details like timezone handling.

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 gives a specific verb (identify/detect) and a concrete resource (scheduling problems and conflicts), then enumerates the exact conditions it flags (no-lunch days, >3h stretches, zero free time, overlapping events). This is far more specific than the tool name alone, though it never contrasts itself with the likely overlap with analyze_week, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated detection types, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the alternative analyze_week sibling. An agent can infer the scenario but must guess how it relates to the other analysis tools.

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