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 output-side behavior that the annotations don't: per-event citation count and confidence parity with get_timeline, plus an aggregate uncited_count — meaningful because there is no output schema to convey this.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by when-to-use and then output characteristics. Three short paragraphs, each earning its place, with no filler — only slightly looser than an ideal single tight block.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-covered schema, the main remaining gap was return-value information, which the description supplies (citation count, confidence, uncited_count). The one thing an agent cannot learn is pagination/ordering behavior for a merge across multiple targets, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 (limit, anchor, targets, event_types, object_type, include_private) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'people or families' loosely maps to object_type but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Merge several people or families into one chronological timeline'), and the description explicitly references get_timeline, noting it carries the same per-event citation count and confidence plus an uncited_count across the set. This differentiates it from the single-timeline sibling, though the contrast is framed as output parity rather than a crisp 'use this instead of that' statement.

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?

Two concrete usage scenarios are given: seeing a household move together through censuses, and checking whether a family's events are mutually consistent. These tell the agent when the tool fits well, but there is no explicit exclusion or routing rule against get_timeline, event_span, or verify_tree.

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