get_event_timer

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the return fields (start_utc, start_unix, etc.) and mentions chatlink. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but as a read-only tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Description is informative without waste, front-loads purpose and usage, then details parameters and returns. Slightly long but each sentence contributes value.

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?

Tool has 2 simple parameters with thorough explanation. Output fields are fully described in text, so even without seeing the output schema the agent can understand return values and use the tool correctly.

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 0%, description fully compensates: explains 'query' matches event/map/category names with examples, and 'count' controls number of upcoming occurrences returned.

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?

Description clearly states it gets upcoming start times for timed events in GW2, specifying resource (timed events) and verb (get), and distinguishes from siblings like wiki_get_page which cannot see timers due to JavaScript rendering.

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 says use for 'when is the next X' or schedule questions, and that wiki_get_page cannot see timers. Also advises to retry with valid zone names if nothing matches, providing clear when-to-use and error handling guidance.

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