time_travel_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe the behavior when both snapshot_id and as_of_timestamp are provided or omitted. The term 'query' implies read-only but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, which is concise in length but under-specified. It conveys only the core purpose and omits essential contextual or parameter-related information needed for effective use, making it more under-sized than appropriately concise.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and related siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to specify time (snapshot_id vs timestamp), what filtering options are available, or when to choose this over time_travel_diff or list_snapshots, leaving the agent without adequate information for correct invocation.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions), and the description itself adds no parameter details. It does not explain the distinction between snapshot_id and as_of_timestamp, the meaning of where, columns, or limit, or the format of table_name values beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 queries historical Iceberg data at a snapshot/timestamp, specifying the resource and temporal scope. It partially distinguishes from siblings like time_travel_diff and list_snapshots, but does not explicitly differentiate the querying action from those.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as time_travel_diff or list_snapshots. The description lacks any indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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