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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description appropriately focuses on operation-specific traits. It adds useful return behavior by naming the office action body text, character length, and truncation flag, though it does not mention the schema's include_raw debug escape hatch.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by lookup modes and return shape. Every sentence contributes directly to invocation decisions.

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 text-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description states the return payload components and truncation flag. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 parameter-level documentation is already strong. The description adds mode-level semantics: document_id is an exact match, while application_number + mail_date is a fallback lookup, which is meaningful guidance beyond the field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch one USPTO office action's full text. It also distinguishes the two access paths by document_id or application_number + mail_date, making it easy to separate from search and citation/rejection siblings.

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?

It clearly says when to use document_id versus application_number + mail_date, and references search_office_actions as the source of document_id. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool versus get_office_action_citations or get_office_action_rejections, but the retrieval-after-search context is clear.

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