sd_get_chronology_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: results are returned chronologically, include specific dates and date ranges that overlap with the query, and are structured as a list of dictionaries. It does not explicitly state side-effects or read-only nature, but as a 'get' tool, this is reasonably implied. Adding boundary behavior (e.g., inclusive/exclusive dates) would push this to 5.

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 uses clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns) with no wasted sentences. The purpose line is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but the actionable 'WHEN' bullet points and compact parameter descriptions make it exceptionally well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, use cases, exclusions, parameter formats, and return format. It is fully self-contained and does not require the agent to infer behavior from annotations or schemas.

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 'Args' section fully documents both parameters, including ISO 8601 format and start/end meaning. It also mentions ctx (FastMCP Context), which adds context beyond the schema. This completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Retrieve chronology entries for a date range' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings in the 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section by directing users to get_chronology_entry, get_chronology_year, and search_documents.

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 provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections with concrete use cases (biographical timeline, temporal analysis) and specific alternative tools. This goes beyond vague guidance and fully covers when to use this tool versus siblings.

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