build_event_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds behavioral context about chronological sorting and classification logic but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects. It hints at read operations but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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: three sentences plus argument details. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose and front-loads the key information. Every part contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers purpose, parameters, and behavior for a tool with two parameters and one required field. Minor gap: no mention of output format, but output schema covers that.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains company_name (company name or 6-digit stock code) and lookback_days (default 365, max 365), adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 constructs a timeline of corporate disclosure events sorted chronologically, classifies into stages (entry, deepening, exit), and matches known crisis patterns. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on narrative construction and pattern matching.

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 implies usage for building event timelines with crisis pattern matching but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings like analyze_company_risk or list_disclosures_by_stock. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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