Unified report timeline

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by stating the ordering (oldest to newest), the merging behavior across multiple event streams, and the exact return shape. It does not mention potential rate limits or additional access constraints, but for a read-only getter this is sufficient context beyond the 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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, return shape, and usage guidance. 'Read-only.' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which is a minor waste. Otherwise every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description includes a concrete return shape, names the sibling tools for contrast, and clarifies ordering and merge scope. With only one parameter and annotations covering safety/idempotency, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and the parameter description already explains that reportId is the report UUID and accepts report_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ordered activity timeline for one report'), enumerates the merged event kinds, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_report_detail and get_fix_timeline. An agent can unambiguously identify what this tool does and when to use it over siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for an end-to-end view of a report thread, with named alternatives get_report_detail for the static record and get_fix_timeline for debugging a single fix attempt. This is a model of when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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