consolidated_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-shape behavior that the annotations cannot: per-event citation count and confidence, plus an aggregate uncited_count. It does not mention ordering or how the merge resolves conflicting dates, which would be the remaining behavioral detail for a merge tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then intent, then output characteristics. The middle sentence earns its place by grounding the tool in real use cases, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies meaningful return context (citation count, confidence, uncited_count) and the merge intent. It stops short of describing event ordering or deduplication across merged subjects, which is the one gap an agent might wonder about.

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%, so all six parameters including targets, anchor, and include_private are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or cardinality detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Merge several people or families into one chronological timeline') and clarifies the semantics of the merge (one unified timeline rather than separate ones). It also positions itself against the sibling get_timeline by noting output parity, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios: watching a household move through censuses, and checking family event consistency. This is clear context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative to pick instead (it only references get_timeline for output parity, not as a routing choice).

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