query_at_timestamp

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only gives a SQL syntax example, omitting key traits like read-only nature, required permissions, error handling for invalid timestamps, or performance implications. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 sentence and front-loaded, which is structurally acceptable. However, it is overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists, the return format is defined elsewhere, but the description still needs to explain the tool's role in time-travel queries. It fails to mention the relationship to table snapshots, the meaning of 'AS OF', or typical use cases. The description is incomplete for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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 only explains the timestamp parameter with a format example, while table, columns, and limit are left undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the schema definition.

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?

Description clearly states 'Time-travel read' using a timestamp, which conveys the core action and resource. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'table' parameter from the schema, missing a key part of what is being queried. Still, the purpose is distinguishable from siblings like query_at_snapshot.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_at_snapshot or execute_query. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when to prefer this over other query methods, or when not to use it.

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