explore_person_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: per-event location and date where known, plus a Mermaid timeline diagram, which tells the agent what the payload looks like. It stops short of noting limits (e.g., sparse dating or large event lists), hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then return shape, then disambiguation – a sensible order with no filler. The Moses/Paul enumerations are illustrative rather than essential, so it is not as tight as it could be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (event, location, date, timeline diagram) and it does. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and clear sibling routing, nothing needed to invoke it is missing.

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% and the single `person` param is fully documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning about the parameter, 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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'Retrieve the recorded events of a biblical person's life in chronological order.' The ordering constraint and illustrative returns (Moses, Paul) make the tool's function unambiguous and separable from siblings.

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 claims exclusivity ('the only tool covering event sequence and dating for a person') and routes alternatives by function: `lookup_name` for identity/relationships, `explore_genealogy` for lineage. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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