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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: entries are newest-first, output is owner-scoped, and the fields returned are named. It does not mention limits, pagination, or what happens for a party with no appearances, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the intent question. No filler, though the em-dash enumeration makes the first sentence a bit dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so reasonably (per-source entries with thread, role, timestamp, newest first). An agent would still not know entry volume defaults from the description alone, but the schema covers that.

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%, with the limit clamp/default and the party_id UUID pattern already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that party_id must come from mRAG_graph_overview, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Return the dated appearance timeline of one party') and enumerates what each entry contains (source, thread, role, timestamp). It ties back to mRAG_graph_overview as the source of party_id, which distinguishes it from that sibling, though it does not contrast itself with mRAG_graph_neighbors.

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 quoted use case 'when and where did X show up' implies when this is the right call, and the required party_id prerequisite is stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for chronological-vs-relational questions.

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