sd_get_chronology_year

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation, describes the return structure (dictionary with year, heading, list of entries), and notes that entries are sorted chronologically. However, it does not mention error behavior, pagination, or any access limitations.

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, but it contains some redundancy (the first sentence duplicates the PURPOSE section) and includes a reference to 'ctx' that adds noise. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation, including usage examples and return format. However, the minor inconsistencies (tool names without 'sd_' prefix, the 'ctx' arg, and redundant purpose) create slight gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'year' parameter with an example (1785) and its meaning in the context of Schleiermacher's biography. However, it also lists 'ctx' as an argument, which is not in the input schema, potentially confusing the agent about required parameters.

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 the tool retrieves all chronology entries for a specific year, with a verb+resource structure. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting alternatives for specific dates, ranges, and keyword searches.

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 WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections explicitly provide usage context, including example user queries, and name specific alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., get_chronology_entry, get_chronology_entries, search_documents).

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