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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'deterministic', normalizes dates, returns events sorted chronologically, and separates unresolved events. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond basic operation, though it does not discuss state changes or potential side effects.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is 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?

The description gives a solid overview of the tool's core functionality and use cases, but it lacks parameter explanations and edge-case behavior. Since the tool has moderate complexity and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references the 'query' parameter and gives examples that hint at the 'relation' parameter, but it does not explain 'as_of' or 'anchor_event'. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a timeline constructor that finds dated events, normalizes dates, and sorts them chronologically. This is a specific verb-resource combination, and the temporal focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_causal_chain or get_versioned_snapshot.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for 'what order', 'before/after', and 'earliest/latest' questions. This gives clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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