oa_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the analytical output, free tier, and credit cost. It does not mention potential AI variability or error scenarios, but the behavioral traits are adequately covered.

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 (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence summarizes purpose, second details invocation forms, third covers pricing. No extraneous information.

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?

The description covers purpose, invocation, and pricing adequately. It lacks explicit return value description, but output schema is not provided. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining the two invocation patterns and the role of each parameter, such as auto-picking for patentNumber and explicit selection for applicationNumber/documentId.

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's function: AI analysis of USPTO Office Actions, extracting specific rejection grounds, prior art, and response arguments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on analysis rather than data retrieval.

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 defines two invocation forms and refers to the 'prosecution' output for the explicit form, guiding usage. It includes pricing context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare directly to siblings.

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