get_person_timeline

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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: sensitive and restricted records are never returned, trait names only reference ordinary evidence, and unknown/removed persons yield `found: false` rather than an error. This gives the agent important expectations about filtering and failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by parameter guidance and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 covers the essential invocation contract: how to identify the person, the ordering and boundedness, sensitive-record filtering, and not-found behavior. An output schema exists, so return structure does not need description. The only notable gap is the unmentioned `limit` parameter semantics, which is a minor completeness issue.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `person_id` versus `person` well, including the relationship to `resolve_person`. However, the `limit` parameter is not explained at all except via the implicit "bounded chronology" phrase, so one of three parameters remains underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: "Return one person's recent history, newest first, as a bounded chronology." This clearly identifies the resource (one person's history), the ordering (newest first), and the scope (bounded), which sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_person_context or search_people.

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 gives explicit input guidance: pass `person_id` from `resolve_person`, or pass `person` by name/alias to resolve inline. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool relative to siblings, but the clear one-person chronology framing provides strong contextual usage direction.

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