campaign_timeline

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the classification categories, the abstention behavior, the reliance solely on 13D/13G dates, and includes a concrete example. This is particularly valuable given the readOnly and idempotent hints already provided, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 detailed and includes a helpful example, with all sentences contributing meaningful information. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains front-loaded and scannable, earning a strong score.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return formats; it covers behavior, classifications, abstention, and data source caveats. The main gap is the undocumented 'since' parameter, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'company' parameter via the example 'campaign_timeline("MNRO")' and the term 'issuer,' but it entirely omits any explanation of the optional 'since' parameter, leaving its semantics ambiguous.

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 resource: 'Show who moved first on an issuer, who followed, and who is merely index money,' then details the exact output (chronological 13D/13G filings with filer classifications). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling snapshot tools by emphasizing that it provides a time series, not a snapshot.

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 clear usage context by stating that only 13D/13G filing dates are used and that board and 13F layers are snapshots, implying this tool is for chronological ownership events. It also mentions abstention when no dated filing exists. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide direct 'use X instead' guidance.

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