get_office_action_rejections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly announces that the tool is temporarily unavailable due to decommissioned legacy endpoints and pending ODP migration. It also states returning rejection data with claim-level details, giving the agent a complete picture of behavior without contradictions.

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-structured with clear sections (intro, USE THIS TOOL WHEN, IMPORTANT, Args, Returns). It is concise, front-loads key usage guidance, and every sentence serves a purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds the optional/required nuance, so it earns its place.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown to the model), the description covers purpose, usage, availability, parameters, and return type. It also includes an alternative tool recommendation, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter info: application_number is an application number and mail_date is an optional filter with a specified format (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it does not add deeper semantic context (e.g., validation, constraints, or the relationship between parameters), so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 it retrieves structured rejection data from office actions, specifying rejection types (102, 103, 112) and affected claims. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_office_action_text and get_office_action_citations by focusing on structured, claim-level rejection 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need structured data about claim rejections') and immediately warns that it is currently unavailable, directing users to an alternative tool (odp_get_documents). This provides clear usage context and an exclusion condition.

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