get_event_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context: returns timeline array with date/phase/description structure, null for invalid ID, and lifecycle phase transitions. No contradictions.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence serves a purpose: main function, lifecycle details, return structure, usage guidance, error case. No wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (full event detail + timeline array with date/phase/description + related IDs), covers the null error case, and provides usage boundaries. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the schema already provides a clear description and example for event_id. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the lifecycle timeline and full detail for a single event' with specific verb and resource. It explicitly tracks lifecycle phases (plan → in_progress → completed/terminated) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a known event_id, not search/browse.

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 states when to use (knowing event_id, want lifecycle history) and when not to use (searching, only need summary) with direct references to alternative tools (search_events_by_stock/type). This is a model example of usage guidance.

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