get_timeline

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: each entry carries age at the time, citation counts, strongest confidence, and an 'uncited_count' that signals how much of the timeline rests on no evidence. That audit-oriented framing is useful, though it says nothing about ordering ties, pagination, or how many events come back.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remainder is spent on return-value semantics rather than filler. The second sentence is slightly ornate ('doubles as a readable audit of where the evidence thins out') but it does carry information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the shape and meaning of each entry and of 'uncited_count'. Combined with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the family mode and generational folding behavior remain unexplained.

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 are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about 'target' resolution, 'object_type', or the ancestor/offspring folding semantics, and 'uncited_count' it references is a return field rather than a parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a chronological timeline of someone's life events.' That is far more informative than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'consolidated_timeline', which appears to serve an overlapping purpose. Without that differentiation the agent cannot reliably choose between the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer 'consolidated_timeline' or 'get_ancestors'/'get_descendants' over folding ancestor/descendant events in here. The 'only when the user asks' note about private records is a parameter-level caution inside the schema, not usage routing in the description.

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