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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only operation' while adding genuinely new context: the X-License-Key authentication requirement. It stops short of noting result ordering or that only 'active' (non-purged) facts are visible, but the added auth detail is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the safety and auth facts. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is schema-documented. The definition is nearly complete, with the only gap being how this differs from fact-querying siblings like icx_search_facts.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the limit default/max. The description only adds the mild nuance that connector_id may also be a 'source ID', which is marginal but not redundant. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Inspects') plus a concrete resource ('active grounded facts and simplicial statements ... in Volumetric Memory') scoped to a connector/data source. An agent understands what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like icx_search_facts or icx_recall_scoped.

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?

Usage is implied by 'active ... currently tracked ... for a specific connector', suggesting a per-connector state inspection rather than a content search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as icx_search_facts for querying facts by content.

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