Find double bookings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavioral traits: returns all overlapping pairs, includes collision minutes, handles whole-day events separately, and enforces a plan-based date window. It could add output structure details, but it covers the most important behaviors for correct invocation.

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 tightly written sentences lead with the primary semantic, then add scope, special cases, and plan limits. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler.

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 detection tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough behavioral and contextual information to select it and call it correctly. It leaves some return-format details unspecified, but the core semantics are covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Descriptions of from, to, and calendar already exist in the schema; the tool description mostly repeats the calendar default and adds a plan limit, but adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly defines the tool as finding every pair of overlapping events and reporting the collision minutes. It also notes that it spans all calendars by default unless one is named, which sharply distinguishes it from single-calendar event tools like events_list or free_busy.

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 concrete context for when to use the tool: when cross-calendar clashes matter, and it explains the optional calendar parameter behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is strongly implied.

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