odp_get_attorney

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a straightforward read-style lookup and adds one useful behavioral constraint ('without slashes'), but it does not mention auth, error behavior, coverage limitations, or response characteristics. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise, containing a clear action, parameter name, formatting rule, and example. Every element earns its place and there is 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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides the essential invocation detail: the exact format of the application number. It could add usage caveats or data source scope, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only provides the parameter name and string type, while the description adds meaningful semantics: the application number must be provided without slashes, with a concrete example ('14412875'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Get attorney/agent of record for an application.' It specifies the resource and the input type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools such as patentsview_get_attorney or 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?

The description implies usage by indicating the tool retrieves attorney/agent of record for an application and provides an example application number. It does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or state exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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