get_company_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral information: the events are sorted from newest to oldest and includes specific event sources. But it does not mention pagination, output shape, limits, or any access considerations, leaving moderate gaps.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates event types; the second adds sorting behavior. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

The tool is simple (single parameter) but has no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what events are included and the sorting order, yet it does not specify the structure of the returned events, pagination, or how dates are represented, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 only parameter, inn, is already described as a 10-digit legal entity INN. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full load; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: retrieving a company's event timeline. It enumerates the exact event categories included (bankruptcy, foreign-agent registry, inspections, publication in state register, trademarks), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company or get_company_financials.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: any time a date-ordered timeline of corporate events is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, when not to use the tool, or how it should be selected over get_company or get_company_financials.

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