Get Design Priority Right Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what the response contains, whether the lookup returns historical priority claims, or how it behaves for an application with no priority right.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the purpose front-loaded, appropriate for a one-parameter read-only lookup. Being terse is not a defect here, though it leaves no room to disambiguate from siblings.

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 tool is simple: one fully described required parameter and a read-only hint, so the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the returned 'priority-right information' and does not, leaving the agent guessing at the payload.

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 100% and the single parameter is well documented in the schema as a 10-digit Japan design application number. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Fetch') with a named resource ('design priority-right information'), which places it within the design-family siblings versus the trademark/patent equivalents. However, 'priority-right information' is domain jargon and the description never clarifies what that information actually is, so an agent cannot fully distinguish its payload from get_design_documents or get_design_registration.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_design_progress or the trademark/patent priority-right variants. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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