Company timeline

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: ordering ('newest first'), the specific fields in each event (date, type, title, ids, source_url), and a limitation ('No classification or summarisation beyond KAP's fields'). This gives agents a clearer expectation of what the tool does and does not do, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Chronological events for a company'), followed by a concise list of sources and event structure. Every word contributes to understanding, making it efficient and well-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?

The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, so the return format is presumably defined elsewhere. The description covers the key aspects: the sources, the event fields, and the limitation on classification. It does not explicitly explain pagination or default date ranges, but those are hinted at via schema defaults and descriptions. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but could mention default behavior or pagination to be 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 coverage is 71%, with descriptions for ticker, start_date, max_pages, event_types, and disclosure_type, but not for limit or end_date. The description indirectly clarifies the meaning of event_types by listing the categories (disclosure, corporate_action, news) and mentions date filtering through 'chronological events', but it does not add details for limit or end_date. Since most parameters are already documented, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, warranting a baseline 3.

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 returns 'Chronological events for a company (newest first)' and enumerates the event sources (KAP disclosures, corporate actions, Yahoo news). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_corporate_actions or get_company_news, which focus on single event types. The specific verb 'get' plus resource 'timeline' is 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 implies that this tool aggregates multiple event types into a unified timeline, contrasting with siblings that cover individual categories. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., 'if you need only corporate actions, use get_corporate_actions'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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