build_event_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency responsibility. It describes core functionality (sorting and classifying events) but does not disclose edge-case behaviors, authentication needs, or limitations such as data freshness or availability.

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?

Description is well-structured with a summary paragraph, classification detail, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the missing lookback_days parameter in the Args section is a minor structural flaw.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and classification but omits the lookback_days parameter and does not explain the output format or interpretation of stages. The output schema likely fills some gaps, but the description is not fully self-contained.

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%. The description explains company_name with examples and lookback_years with default and range, adding value beyond the schema. However, it omits the lookback_days parameter entirely, leaving the agent without guidance on that parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool constructs a narrative timeline of corporate disclosure events and classifies them into stages (entry, deepening, exit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze risk or retrieve documents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_disclosures_by_stock or analyze_company_risk. The description only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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