Get timeline

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's value-add is the cost profile (50 credits flat, most expensive route) and the ordering guarantee (newest first). Those are genuinely useful behavioral facts absent from the structured fields; it does not mention pagination behavior or whether limit interacts with the date filter.

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?

One sentence plus a short fragment; the resource and ordering are front-loaded and the cost caveat follows immediately. No filler.

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 covers the essential calling facts for a read-only list tool: what it returns, ordering, filtering levers, and cost. Return record shape is left unspecified, but the enumerated event categories give a reasonable preview.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter carries a descriptive line, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds 'narrow with from/to', which is a usage hint rather than new semantic detail on limit or event_type. 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 resource (curated field events) and enumerates the content types it covers (delistings, takedowns, notable releases), plus the endpoint. It separates itself from the raw list siblings somewhat via 'curated', but never explicitly contrasts with list_delistings or list_deletions, so identification is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives usable context: it flags the flat 50-credit cost as 'the most expensive route' and tells the agent to narrow with from/to. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for cheap delisting lookups, so the when-not-to-use case is implied rather than spelled out.

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