odp_get_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns a 'complete timeline' of events, implying a list output, and explains the input format (app_num without slashes). However, it does not describe the output structure, potential errors, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich, aligning with a 3.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' guideline, and an explicit parameter explanation. There is no repetition of schema content, and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema present. The description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not delve into return values or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the availability of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does so effectively by stating 'app_num: Application number without slashes (e.g., "14412875")', providing format and an example. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's mere 'App Num' field, though it could elaborate on what constitutes a valid application number.

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 the tool retrieves 'prosecution transaction history for an application', specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like odp_get_application (which gets application details) and odp_get_documents (which gets documents) by focusing on the complete prosecution timeline including office actions, responses, and fee payments.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need the complete timeline of prosecution events including office actions, responses, and fee payments.' It provides clear context but does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.