schedule_find_conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying the three detection rules and thresholds: exact overlaps, fewer than 10 minutes between events, and events longer than 4 hours. It also states the return type as a JSON string, which is useful operational context.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and then provides the detection criteria, arguments, and return format in a clean structure. Each section earns its place; the threshold details and return summary are informative without being verbose.

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 read-only conflict-detection tool, the description is complete: it states the exact purpose, the inputs, the detection rules, and the return format. The read-only annotations cover side-effect expectations, and the output schema is available, so the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly maps all three parameters (start_date, end_date, calendar_id) to their meanings, adding semantic clarity beyond the bare params wrapper. While the schema already defines defaults and ISO formatting, the description's field breakdown helps an agent understand the role of each parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect overlapping events or tight transitions in a date range.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by naming the exact detection categories (overlaps, tight transitions, marathon sessions), so an agent can distinguish it from gcal_get_events or gcal_find_free_slots without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: detecting conflicts or tight transitions in a calendar date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the focused detection language makes the intended use obvious and distinct from listing events or finding free slots.

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