get_office_action_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is temporarily unavailable and explains the legacy API decommission, and it describes the return content. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could add error-handling details.

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, usage, important, args, returns). It contains necessary information but is slightly verbose; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple 2-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and even provides a replacement tool. The unavailability notice and alternative are especially helpful for agents.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by giving application_number with an example format and noting mail_date as an optional filter with date format. It also indicates optionality via the word 'Optional.'

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 starts with 'Get full-text of office actions for an application,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It further elaborates on examiner rejections, requirements, and objections, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_office_action_rejections or citations.

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?

Includes an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section and an 'IMPORTANT' note instructing to use odp_get_documents as an alternative due to unavailability, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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