point_in_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions the signed, anchored nature of the record and the API key requirement, but does not detail return structure, error conditions (e.g., missing node_id at the date), or rate limits. Some transparency provided, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences: one defining the action, the second providing use case and requirement. No unnecessary words; highly concise and efficient.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and key requirement, it lacks details on the return format (signed record structure) and potential edge cases (e.g., no version at date). Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness. Sufficient but not thorough.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description reinforces the api_key requirement and node_id as 'rule,' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a signed historical record of which rule version was authoritative at a given past date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'consult_node' (current version) and 'get_latest_changes' (recent updates) by specifying past point-in-time retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Useful when an agent must show what a rule said at the moment it acted,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would improve guidance.

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