check_calendar_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 covered. The description adds the behavioral trait that it returns dates with more than one workout, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or how conflicts are counted (e.g., overlapping vs. same-day). No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose with zero filler. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify the output shape (e.g., list of dates, count, workout details), which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. The annotations cover safety, but the return value is undocumented.

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 0%, and the description does not explain startDate/endDate formats or semantics beyond the obvious date-range implication. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about date format, inclusivity, or timezone handling, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('dates containing more than one scheduled COROS workout'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_scheduled_workouts or swap_calendar_workouts. It lacks an explicit mention of the date-range parameters, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies a read-only analysis use case (finding conflict dates) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_scheduled_workouts or audit_calendar. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for conflict detection, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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