Search_petitions_by_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context. It explains the tool's role in red flag analysis (e.g., multiple petitions indicate difficult prosecution) and cross-referencing workflows, though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits, auth needs, or error handling.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Use for, Examples, Red flag analysis, Cross-MCP integration, Parameters). Every sentence adds value, though it's somewhat lengthy. The purpose is front-loaded, and information is efficiently organized.

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?

Given 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, examples, analysis context, integration with other tools, and parameter details, compensating for gaps in structured data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed parameter semantics: application_number format examples ('17896175', '15/123,456') and include_documents behavior ('Include documentBag in response'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all petition decisions for a specific application number'), distinguishing it from siblings like Search_petitions_by_art_unit or Search_petitions_minimal. It precisely defines the scope of retrieval.

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 'Use for' section explicitly lists three scenarios: complete petition history, red flag identification, and cross-referencing. The 'Cross-MCP integration' section provides detailed alternatives and sequencing with other tools, including pfw_search_applications_minimal and PTAB checks.

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