get_status_code

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any error conditions, but given the simple nature of the tool, the lack of such details is not a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for the main description, usage guidance, and parameter/return details. It avoids unnecessary fluff while providing all essential information in a compact format.

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, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, the parameter format, and the return value. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect from it. No additional details are necessary for effective 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 description provides a detailed explanation of the single parameter 'code', including an example ('30' for 'Docketed New Case'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple string type, helping the agent understand the expected input format and content. The schema coverage is 100% as the only parameter is described.

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 function: 'Look up USPTO application status code meaning.' It specifies the resource (USPTO application status code) and the action (look up meaning), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trademark status code lookups. The mention of 'examination stage' further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicitly includes a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section, stating it should be used when encountering a status code in application data and needing to understand the examination stage. It also mentions what it returns, providing clear context for when to invoke it. No alternative tools are mentioned, but the specificity makes the usage unambiguous.

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