full_timeline_for_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output structure (stream with 'kind' discriminator, counts per kind) and the optional inclusion of event links. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only retrieval tool, that is acceptable. A lower score would require missing critical behavioral info.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise with no wasted words or redundancies.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output structure (kind field, counts, unified stream) which is sufficient for basic understanding. It could mention potential data limits or performance, but the coverage is adequate for typical use.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context about the unified output but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a unified timeline for an entity, specifying the three types of events (event, territory_change, chain_transition) and explicitly differentiating from sibling tools like get_evolution and events_for_entity. The verb 'restituisce' (returns) is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('instead of calling get_evolution + events_for_entity + entity_predecessors + entity_successors separately') and provides an example query ('raccontami tutta la storia dell'Impero Romano d'Oriente'). This gives clear context for selection.

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