build_event_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as the conditional public record registry section and the classification stages. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any dependencies or prerequisites, or how lookback_years vs lookback_days interact. It provides some behavioral insight but not comprehensive transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second describes classification, third covers conditional behavior, and Args are clearly listed. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the main parameters and conditional output. However, it fails to document lookback_days, which is part of the input schema. This omission leaves the invocation incomplete, especially since the interplay between lookback_days and lookback_years is unclear. Overall, it's decent but not fully complete.

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 explains company_name (accepts name or 6-digit code) and lookback_years (range 1-5, default 1), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits the lookback_days parameter entirely, which is a significant gap since the schema includes it. The compensation is partial but valuable.

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 builds a chronological timeline of corporate disclosure events and constructs a narrative of manipulation. It specifies the model stages (entry, deepening, exit) and matching against known crisis patterns, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual disclosures or risk analysis.

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 analyzing corporate manipulation narratives but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_company_risk or list_disclosures_by_stock. There is no direct when/when-not guidance, though the purpose provides enough context for an agent to infer applicability.

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