uspto_application_continuity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it shows parent and child applications, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or data format. With annotations covering safety, the additional context is sufficient but not rich.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and output content. It could briefly mention return structure, but is mostly complete for an agent to understand its use.

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 only parameter, 'application_number', has a schema description 'Application number'. The description does not add extra semantics (e.g., format hints, validation rules) beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'continuity data for a patent application'. It further explains the content as parent/child chain with examples (continuations, divisionals, CIPs), distinguishing it from other USPTO tools like assignments or details.

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 for retrieving patent continuity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative USPTO tools (e.g., uspto_application_details). No exclusion or alternative mention is provided.

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