query_as_of

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the filtering behavior (only relations meeting the condition) and implies read-only operation via 'time-travel query.' It does not mention error handling or performance, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, the filtering condition, and a domain label. No redundant or vague wording; every word adds value.

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?

The description is succinct but covers the essential temporal query logic. Lacking details about return format (e.g., relation details), but the tool's name and context make this a minor gap. Adequate for a straightforward query tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how the asOf parameter interacts with validFrom/validUntil fields, providing context beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 precisely states 'Query relations valid at a specific point in time' and provides the exact temporal condition (validFrom <= date AND (validUntil undefined OR validUntil >= date)). It also labels it as 'Time-travel query for temporal knowledge graphs,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_as_of or timeline.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need relations valid at a specific date) without explicitly stating alternatives. Given the sibling context, an agent can infer that this is for relation-level temporal queries, distinct from entity-level time queries or event timelines.

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