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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the held-out validation step and the epistemic limitation that no exact minute is claimed, which materially shapes how results should be interpreted.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core function is front-loaded and the caveat follows naturally. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the search-window parameters (earliestTime/latestTime/stepMinutes) and baseInput unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It loosely implies 'events' and 'holdoutEventId' via 'life events' and 'held-out event', but earliestTime, latestTime, stepMinutes, and the nested baseInput object are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (scores candidate birth times against life events, validates with a held-out event), which is clear and distinctive. However, it does not name or differentiate itself from the closest sibling, simulate_birth_time_uncertainty, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the method described (candidate scoring plus holdout validation), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The 'never claims an exact recovered minute' clause hints at a boundary but doesn't route the agent between siblings.

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