calendar.events.conflicts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it fully: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, on-demand computation, non-persistence, and the exact return shape `{conflicts, count, buffer_minutes, events_considered}`. It even doc both the default buffer setting and that 0 disables the check. Nothing is left to inference.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: safety profile up front, then purpose/conflict taxonomy, then configuration semantics, then return shape. No filler; the most decision-relevant fact (read-only/no side effects) is front-loaded.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 4 params, the description is complete: window parameters, optional scoping, buffer override, default setting source, return shape, and a pointer to the related tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening any other schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains `buffer_minutes` overrides the `calendar.min_buffer_minutes` setting (and the 0 = off semantics), and clarifies that `entity`-scoped conflict checking operates one hop out to linked entities. This is above the baseline without duplicating schema text.

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?

"Report scheduling conflicts in a window" names a specific verb + resource, then enumerates the three conflict types (`overlap`, `linked_overlap`, `insufficient_buffer`). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `calendar.events.list` and `calendar.events.add` without inspecting their 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 strong contextual guidance: read-only, computed on demand, nothing persisted, and explicit about when buffer behavior applies. It names the alternative (`calendar.events.list` with `include_conflicts`) but does not spell out the exact condition that would make an agent choose one over the other — it is closely implied but not explicit.

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