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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are snippets rather than full bodies, every event carries both occurredAt and createdAt, since/until filter on occurredAt, and backdated entries are deliberately visible. It stops short of disclosing result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

Section headers (TYPE SELECTION, DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR, STATUS FILTER, TIMESTAMPS) make it easy to scan and the core purpose is front-loaded. It runs long and repeats some schema enum semantics (status values) that the schema already documents, so a few lines could be trimmed.

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 12-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, filter semantics, return shape (snippets), and follow-up paths, which is close to complete. Gaps remain around limit/default-20 behavior, result ordering, and the unmentioned graph type, but those are documented in the 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, and the description earns above that by explaining what each type means (decision/action/event/discovery), that status applies only to discoveries and actions, and that since/until map to occurredAt rather than createdAt. It omits the 'graph' type and the deprecated 'topic' parameter that the schema itself lists, leaving a small mismatch between prose and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query the organisational timeline') and frames it precisely as 'the read counterpart to engramic_record_draft + engramic_record_publish', which separates it from the write siblings without opening either schema. It also distinguishes itself from engramic_event and engramic_topic by declaring that those supply full detail while this returns snippets.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to scan the timeline, then call engramic_event with an id (or engramic_topic with a topic id) when the full body is needed. It also states defaults ('omit to query all types', status defaults to 'all') and that the status filter is ignored for other types, so an agent knows when filtering will be a no-op.

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