Check Course Conflicts

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

The annotations already communicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful interpretation of an empty upstream array as meaning "no conflict" and removes ambiguity by explicitly stating the tool does not book or modify anything. It does not contradict 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are first, followed by a useful return-value interpretation, then a caution against an assuming a side effect. 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?

Given that the tool has only two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, the input intent, the no-conflict return meaning, and the non-modifying guarantee. It stops short of describing the structure or detail of a non-empty conflict report, but the empty-array result is still covered and the tool is fully append-callable.

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 description gives context for courseIds: they are a proposed set of learning-unit course IDs checked against each other and known appointments. It does not add much beyond that, and it leaves includeAppointmentsForCourseIds entirely to the schema. With only about 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 exactly what the tool does: evaluate learning-unit course IDs against one another and known appointments. The verb is specific, and the line 'does not book or modify anything' separates it from the booking-related sibling tools. It is clearly not a tautology.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a proposed course selection needs to be checked for conflicts or uncovered that are non-mutating. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when-not-to use this tool, but its behavioral distinction from booking/modifying tools is clear enough that an agent can choose it appropriately.

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