get_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It declares 'Read-only,' describes the return shape with an example, notes that date_from only matters for history, and explains that missing categories yield empty lists. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the raw schema.

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 well-organized into Args, Returns, and Notes. Each section adds necessary information: parameter semantics, return contract, and edge-case behavior. The mention of formerly separate tools is useful context, and the alternative get_day_summary is clearly highlighted.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly: it defines all parameters, explains the return format, notes the read-only nature, and points to the more appropriate sibling for whole-day summaries. No critical information 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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter: category values with defaults and meanings, date_from format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and scope, and subdomain behavior including the default. This is more informative than an enum-based schema would be.

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: 'Get EduPage timeline notifications, filtered by category.' It also enumerates the distinct category values and explicitly references former tool names, making the tool's scope easy to distinguish from siblings like get_day_summary.

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?

It explicitly states when to prefer an alternative: 'For a whole-day report ... prefer get_day_summary — one call.' It also implies when this tool is appropriate by categorizing event types and noting that missing event types return empty lists, which helps an agent decide between timeline-specific queries and the summary endpoint.

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