find_conflicts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world safety. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: all-day events never count as conflicts, and it describes the return shape (each overlapping pair with overlap window, or "none"). This meaningfully supplements the 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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core operation front-loaded and the notable edge case (all-day events) plus return format following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only query with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key edge case, and return format, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only the days parameter semantics and how range vs. days interact are left unaddressed.

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 67%; date and dateEnd are documented in the schema and the description's 'date range' phrasing loosely maps to them, but the days parameter has no description in either schema or prose and its interaction with date/dateEnd defaults is unexplained. Baseline 3 given partial schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: find calendar events that overlap in time within a date range. This clearly distinguishes it from get_calendar_events (list events) and find_free_slots (opposite operation) by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings, keeping it just under 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?

Conveys the intent (detect overlapping events) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as find_free_slots or get_calendar_events, and no exclusions beyond the all-day rule. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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