get_timeline

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuine context by disclosing the shape of the output (age per entry, citation support counts, strongest confidence, and an `uncited_count` for unsupported events) and the withholder behaviour is documented in the schema's include_private. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or truncation semantics for the 200-event default.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and uses the remaining two sentences for return-value and audit information rather than filler. The em-dash clause is slightly rhetorical ('doubles as a readable audit') but it does convey a real use case.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the job of explaining what comes back (age, citation counts, confidence, uncited_count). Given six parameters at full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the only meaningful omission is disambiguation from the sibling timeline tools.

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%, including the multi-generation folding rules for ancestors/offspring and the privacy default, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond echoing `uncited_count`, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('chronological timeline of someone's life events'), and even clarifies what an entry contains. However, it never mentions the sibling `consolidated_timeline` or `event_span`, so an agent can't tell from the description alone which timeline tool is appropriate for a given request.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'readable audit of where the evidence thins out' framing suggests using it for citation-coverage review, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Against a sibling called `consolidated_timeline`, that omission is a real gap.

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