get_office_action_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that the tool is temporarily unavailable, that legacy endpoints were decommissioned, and that it returns citations from Form PTO-892, PTO-1449, and office action text. This is sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 well-organized with labeled sections: tool purpose, use-when guidance, an important unavailability warning, Args, and Returns. Every line serves a purpose, and the most actionable availability warning is placed prominently.

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 the tool's simplicity, range of two parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to know: what citations are returned, how to filter by mail date, and that an alternative exists because the endpoint is unavailable. No critical selection context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does add that mail_date is an optional filter with YYYY-MM-DD format, but application_number is only restated as 'Application number' without additional specificity. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get prior art citations from office actions,' and clarifies that these are references the examiner cited against an application. It also names an alternative tool, get_enriched_citations, which helps distinguish this tool from siblings.

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?

It provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' statement: 'You need to see what references the examiner cited against an application.' It also gives clear guidance to use get_enriched_citations as an alternative because the tool is temporarily unavailable, so the agent knows when and when not to invoke it.

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