breach_timeline

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses ordering ('oldest first'), the analytical outputs (first/latest incident, per-year counts, repeat victim status, worst threat level, total accounts), the metadata-only policy, and the forward-looking risk interpretation of repeat victimhood. This is substantial behavioral context.

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 yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds key output details, a risk interpretation, a data policy statement, and an explicit alternative — each sentence earning its place 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly: chronological incident list, summary judgments (first/latest, per-year, repeat victim, worst threat, total accounts), and the metadata-only nature. Given the single parameter and clear annotations, the description fully completes the picture.

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 100% (single 'entity' parameter with a clear description and examples). The tool description adds only minimal reinforcement ('one organization'), but does not need to add much since the schema already explains the parameter thoroughly.

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 a specific action: 'Build the complete incident-by-incident CHRONOLOGY of one organization across every source and all history, oldest first'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming 'check_exposure' for a different use case ('yes/no presence check'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by defining the full chronology scope, and explicitly points to 'check_exposure' as the alternative for a simple presence check. It also includes a 'Metadata only; never the leaked data' note, setting expectations for what the tool is not for.

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