get_as_of

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions, no pagination/truncation behavior despite max_weeks defaulting to 104, no note that older as_of dates may be unavailable. Only the vague hint of snapshot semantics is conveyed; the availability windows live in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste and the core concept front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, which is a completeness issue rather than a structure one.

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?

Eight parameters, a date-partitioned history with per-source start dates, and a default row cap of 104 weeks: this is a non-trivial tool with zero annotations and no output-schema explanation of the vintage semantics. The one sentence does not prepare an agent to call it correctly across region_type and pathogen combinations.

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 the schema already documents as_of, start, max_weeks, region_id and the pathogen enum constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the baseline of 3 unmet; it merely restates the concept the as_of field already explains.

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?

States a specific resource (the series) and a specific temporal qualifier (as published on a past date), which is meaningfully distinct from get_series and get_revisions. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'For real-time backtests and audits' gestures at when to use it, but never says when to use get_series or get_revisions instead. The agent must infer the boundary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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