Verbatim Register Quoting

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only safety profile. The description adds context about exact character-for-character retrieval and 'no side effects,' but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as out-of-range index handling or access requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the intended use case, and the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from the closest sibling, without needing to restate schema details or output structure.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents family, index, and space_id. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing that index is an 'ordinal slot index.' This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves exact character-for-character verbatim text quotes from stored document registers by document family and ordinal slot index.' This clearly distinguishes it from the semantic sibling tool icx_recall_scoped by emphasizing exactness over paraphrasing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when exact contractual wording, legal clauses, or code revisions must be quoted without AI paraphrasing.' It also names the alternative for semantic QA: 'Use icx_recall_scoped for semantic QA instead.' This fully addresses when to use and when not to use.

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