get_status_code

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

No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only lookup operation. It does not mention potential side effects, but the nature of 'look up' suggests no destructive actions. Could explicitly state it's safe.

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?

Very concise: two sentences plus a usage line. Every part earns its place. No redundant information.

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 a single parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately explains input and output. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the 'code' parameter with an example ('e.g., "30" for "Docketed New Case"') and what it represents, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 looks up USPTO application status code meanings, using specific verb 'look up' and resource 'status code meaning'. It distinguishes from siblings like odp_get_application.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'When you encounter a status code in application data and need to understand what examination stage it represents.' No alternative tools mentioned, but context is clear.

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