odp_get_continuity

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility. It explains the output ('Continuity data showing parent/child relationships and priority claims') and adds the note about the application number format ('without slashes'). It doesn't address rate limits or authentication, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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?

Four concise sections (purpose, use-case, args, returns) with no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value, and the 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' is highly scannable.

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 lookup that returns continuity data, the description covers input format, output type, and provides a clear use case. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return fields. It is complete for its complexity.

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 itself provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining the format ('without slashes') and giving a concrete example ('14412875'), which is crucial for correct parameter usage.

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 family/continuity data (parent and child applications)' – a specific verb and resource. Among the many patent-related tools, this one is unambiguously about family/continuity, making it distinct.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section explicitly tells the agent to use it for understanding the patent family tree, including parent applications, continuations, divisionals, and CIPs. However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, only positive when-to-use context.

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