odp_get_application

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 discloses the input format (without slashes/commas) and the return content, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a moderate 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 purpose, when to use, arguments, and returns. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the source, the specific data content, and the parameter format. It does not mention error cases or what happens if the application number is invalid, but given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides minimal meaning (just a string field with zero coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying the exact format: 'without slashes or commas' and gives a concrete example ("14412875"). This leaves no ambiguity about how to construct the parameter.

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 'Get patent application data from USPTO Open Data Portal' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'prosecution/file wrapper data including status, dates, and basic metadata', which differentiates it from related tools like metadata, continuity, or assignment retrieval.

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 provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' clause: 'You need prosecution/file wrapper data for an application including status, dates, and basic metadata.' This gives clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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