sd_get_chronology_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (list of dictionaries), notes multiple events may occur, and the verb 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety guarantees or error behavior, which would be useful but is not critical for a simple getter.

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-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the core action. While there is slight redundancy between the first sentence and PURPOSE, every section adds valuable information, making it appropriately concise for its richness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description fully covers the purpose, usage, parameter format, and return type. The output schema exists, so no further return-value detail is needed. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the 'date' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the required ISO 8601 format with a concrete example. It also mentions the 'ctx' context parameter, making parameter usage clear.

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 'Retrieve chronology entries for a specific date,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sd_get_chronology_entries and sd_get_chronology_year by emphasizing 'specific date' versus ranges or years.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, naming exact alternative tools for date ranges, entire years, and keyword searches. This provides clear selection guidance beyond the schema and annotations.

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