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 temporal ordering, current flagging, return of current_value and has_multiple_versions, and an optional cached narrative summary based on a feature flag. This is useful beyond the schema, though it omits error handling or side effects.

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 a single, organized paragraph covering definition, usage, examples, and return details. Each sentence adds value and there's no fluff, though it is a bit dense and could be broken into clearer sections.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still explains current_value and has_multiple_versions. It addresses the primary use case, examples, and a feature flag. It doesn't cover limitations or errors, but for this tool's scope it's sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. Entity and predicate are explained through examples, and as_of_current is implied by 'most-recent-before-as_of' but not explicitly defined. The optional nature of as_of_current isn't clarified, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it provides a temporal-ordered view of all values for an (entity, predicate) pair, flagging the most recent before a cut-off as current. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the resolution of current value from historical versions, reinforced by concrete examples.

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 says 'Use this when the agent sees contradictory facts... and needs to know which is current,' giving a clear trigger scenario. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the scenario is specific enough to guide appropriate invocation.

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