odp_get_adjustment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, error handling for invalid application numbers, or any side effects. It only states it retrieves data, lacking transparency about operational nuances.

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 a clear purpose statement and a separate usage condition. It avoids unnecessary detail while conveying the essential information.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It does not elaborate on return values, but given an output schema exists, that is not required. It lacks mention of potential edge cases or fallback behavior, so it is slightly incomplete.

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 explains the 'app_num' parameter as an application number without slashes and gives an example, which provides useful formatting guidance. However, it does not cover validation rules or possible formats beyond the example.

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 gets patent term adjustment data and specifies the use case for calculating expiration dates with USPTO delays. It is distinct from sibling tools like odp_get_application.

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 provides a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' condition, guiding the agent to use it when calculating patent expiration dates with delays, which is actionable and differentiates from other tools.

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