timeline_compare_sources

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool separates shared facts and disputed points, which is behavioral information not captured by annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output structure. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool's complexity (comparing framings, multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the output (shared facts and disputed points). It is mostly complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100% with topic and frames parameters well-described (topic has examples, frames has enum). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares different framings (belief, neutral, skeptical) for a topic, separating shared facts and disputed points. It includes specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'framings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like timeline_events or timeline_mandela_catalog.

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 use when comparing framings but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternatives like timeline_deepen_story or timeline_search_reports. It provides minimal guidance on context.

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