uspto_application_continuity

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint by clarifying the content scope (parent and child applications with types like continuations, divisionals, CIPs). However, it does not disclose details about output structure, empty results, or any special handling of application number formats, so it stays at a baseline-plus level.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key output details. Every word contributes; no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema. The description explains the high-level output (parent/child applications) and the data types shown, which covers most use cases. It lacks explicit mention of result structure or potential error cases but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% (the application_number parameter is simply described as 'Application number'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning such as expected format or examples, leaving the parameter semantics to the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('continuity data for a patent application'), then elaborates with the exact types of data ('parent applications (continuations, divisionals, CIPs) and child applications'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uspto_application_details and uspto_application_assignments.

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 implies usage context—any time continuity (parent/child relationships) is needed—but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other application data. Given the large sibling set, explicit alternatives would improve selection accuracy.

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