quick_conflict_check

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

With no annotations, the description directly states the safety rule (stop on conflict) and latency. It conveys a read-only check through the verb 'check', but doesn't explicitly describe return behavior or state that no modifications occur, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description is three focused sentences: purpose, usage timing, and critical rule/latency. No wasted words, well-structured, and easy to parse.

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 the simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides all necessary operational context: when to run it, what it checks, how to react to conflicts, and expected latency. It is complete for correct usage.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no new parameter details. Baseline 3 applies as the description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema.

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 states the tool's function: checking the WCC admin Google Calendar for conflicts at a proposed time. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('WCC admin Google Calendar'), and its purpose is distinct from siblings like draft_event.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Run this BEFORE drafting an event with a date', providing clear sequential guidance relative to draft_event. It also specifies mandatory action on conflict ('MUST STOP and ask the user to pick a different time') and indicates the operation takes ~10s.

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