odp_get_application_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, and the description previews return content (examiner, art unit, status) plus the parameter format. Still, it omits possible error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits, making it only minimally transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' condition, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (single parameter, simple read operation) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and the one parameter, but could improve by noting how this differs from odp_get_application. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 0% description coverage for app_num, but the description compensates fully by specifying 'Application number without slashes' and providing a concrete example ('14412875'). This adds meaningful formatting context that the structured schema alone does not convey.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed metadata for a patent application,' with concrete examples like examiner info, art unit, and status. It clearly states the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool odp_get_application, which likely provides more basic application data.

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 includes a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section that gives an explicit condition: when comprehensive application metadata is needed, including specific fields. However, it does not provide any 'when not to use' guidance or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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