odp_get_foreign_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it reveals little beyond the read operation implied by 'Get.' The note about effective filing date is more about purpose than behavior. It does not disclose potential empty results, ordering, or any side effects, but 'Get' does imply a safe read operation. Neutral, adequate, but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose statement, a clearly labeled usage directive, and a compact args block. Slight redundancy exists between 'Get foreign priority claims' and the rewording in 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN,' but overall every section earns its place with minimal fluff.

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, single-parameter getter with a defined output schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the trigger context and the required argument format. It could be more complete with a note about what 'foreign priority claims' represent or typical response scenarios, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section adds format guidance ('without slashes') and a concrete example ('14412875') beyond the schema's bare string type. This provides solid, non-redundant value for the single parameter, though it doesn't cover edge cases like leading zeros or required length.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('foreign priority claims for an application'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like odp_get_application, odp_get_assignment, and odp_get_transactions. Even without naming siblings, the subject matter is specific enough to identify the tool's role.

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 gives an explicit, actionable trigger: 'find priority claims to foreign applications that may affect the effective filing date.' It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but provides clear context for when the tool is relevant, meriting a 4 rather than a 5.

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