list_historical_periods

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

Discloses key traits: each period has explicit regional scope (e.g., 'Middle Ages' is European, not global), confidence_score, and historiographic_note for controversies. No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden; it covers safety and ethics well.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes filtering, usage examples, and ethical notes without redundancy. Every sentence adds 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields (regional scope, confidence_score, historiographic_note) but does not fully enumerate all fields. The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so more detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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?

Only 3 of 6 parameters (year, region, period_type) are described in the schema. The description adds meaning for these (e.g., year returns periods including that year, region lists allowed values, period_type explains each enum) but does not address limit, offset, or status. Schema coverage is 50%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 lists structured historical periods with examples (Bronze Age, Classical Antiquity) and features like regional scope, confidence score, and filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like get_historical_period by focusing on listing multiple periods.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given: 'inquadrare un anno o entità nel contesto storico' with example questions. It explains filtering options but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_historical_period or event_periods.

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