as_of

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important bitemporal semantics and the quarantine-withholding behavior, but it does not cover permissions, read-only status, error behavior, or the precise effect of the as_recorded default.

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 compact and front-loaded, packing purpose, temporal semantics, a usage example, and quarantine behavior into three sentences without wasted text.

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 bitemporal query with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is substantially complete: it defines the operation, parameters, and quarantine behavior. It still leaves minor gaps around default as_recorded behavior and the return shape, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains key, when (UTC epoch seconds), as_recorded (record-time knowledge), and include_quarantined (controls withholding of quarantined records), covering all four parameters meaningfully, though it does not clarify the default meaning of as_recorded.

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 states a specific operation—a point-in-time bitemporal query that returns the value current for a key at an event time, optionally as known at a record time. This is clear and distinctive, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially similar siblings such as get_as, what_it_knew, or history.

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 gives a useful scenario ('What did we believe about X on date D.'), which implies when the tool applies. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions.

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