calendar_events_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the read-only/no-auth/no-rate-limit profile, that results are 'Computed on demand, nothing is persisted', and the buffer default semantics (config setting, 0 = off, per-call override). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the safety profile, then conflict types, then computation/storage behavior, then the buffer rule, then the return shape and a sibling pointer. Each sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape ({conflicts, count, buffer_minutes, events_considered}) and covers storage, defaults, and scoping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the backing setting (calendar.min_buffer_minutes), explaining that the default comes from it and that buffer_minutes overrides per call, and clarifying entity scoping includes linked neighbors.

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 ('Report scheduling conflicts in a window') and enumerates the three conflict categories it detects (overlap, linked_overlap, insufficient_buffer). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling calendar_events_list, so an agent can route 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?

Gives clear operating context ('Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits') and points to the alternative ('See also calendar_events_list with include_conflicts'). It stops short of an explicit rule for when to choose this tool over that alternative, so it is clear context without full when/when-not guidance.

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