Get official document timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds context about the specific event types returned, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function without any filler. Every word contributes value, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 is present, so return structure is covered. However, the description fails to clarify parameter usage and provides no usage guidelines. For a tool with only two parameters, this is moderately incomplete, especially given the 0% schema coverage for parameters.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It doesn't mention the 'document' or 'language' parameters at all beyond their existence. There is no guidance on what format document identifiers should take or how language affects results. This is a significant gap given the lack of any schema documentation.

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's purpose: returning original, corrigendum, amending-act, and consolidation events as distinct official resources. The verb 'return' and the resource 'document timeline' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the event types listed make its scope distinct from related tools like get_article or get_eu_document.

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 when to use it: when a timeline of official document events is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be preferable. Given the presence of many sibling tools with overlapping domains, this is a moderate gap.

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