Verbatim rule text

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

The annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the source file, retrieval date, no-paraphrasing guarantee, pre-release data quality, and version instability. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cite syntax and then important limitations. It is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter tool, but every sentence contributes useful safety or provenance information, so the length is justified.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it defines the parameter format, scope, source, caveats, and versioning behavior. Even without an output schema, it explains what the response contains (verbatim text plus source and retrieval date).

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage for the 'cite' parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extras: bare rule numbers return every paragraph of that rule, ranges are accepted, and cites follow the exact format used elsewhere in the system. This strengthens the parameter semantics beyond the schema's short example.

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 that the tool returns the verbatim text of a COLREGS paragraph from a specific data source, addressed by cite. The verb 'retrieve' is implied through 'the verbatim text ... by its cite,' and the detailed cite syntax distinguishes it from sibling tools like light or evaluate_display.

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?

The description gives strong context for when to use the tool: whenever verbatim paragraph text is needed by a COLREGS cite, and it explicitly lists coverage exclusions (no day shapes, no sound signals, no Part B rules). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead,' but the scope and limitations are clear enough to guide selection.

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