Citations_get_oa_citation_fields

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which the description aligns with by stating it 'Returns the complete field list' – no mutation. The description adds context about the data source (raw citation data from Form 892 and Form 1449) and the lane distinction, which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose any specifics about output format, pagination, or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple metadata retrieval but not rich in additional behavior.

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 redundant in places: 'Fields, available fields, columns, schema, what can I query, field names, query syntax for the OA citations lane' is a list of synonyms that could be condensed. The core information is in the first sentence and the following two sentences, but the initial repetition adds noise. It's not extremely lengthy, but it could be more concise.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (known to exist, though not provided), the description covers the essential context: it states the resource (OA Citations API v2), the purpose (return field list for Lucene queries), the lane distinction (vs AI-enriched), and the data source (Form 892/1449). This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it, leaving little missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description does explain that it returns a field list, which is the only meaningful semantic context, but it doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 'Get all searchable fields from the USPTO Office Action Citations API v2' and specifies its purpose: returning the complete field list for building Lucene queries. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling 'Citations_get_available_fields' by noting that it targets the OA Citations lane and contrasts with the AI-enriched citations. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 when to use this tool: for retrieving field information specifically for the OA Citations v2 dataset, as opposed to the AI-enriched citations. It mentions 'simpler counterpart' and 'provides raw citation data from Form 892 and Form 1449,' which helps an agent choose this tool over the generic 'Citations_get_available_fields.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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