Get Patent Divisional Application Information

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds nothing further about behavior—no auth requirements, rate limits, response format, or what happens with invalid inputs—so it contributes almost no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity reflects under-specification more than optimal structure.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should convey what information is returned or how it differs from related patent tools. Given the large sibling set and lack of return-value detail, the definition is too sparse to fully orient an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single applicationNumber parameter, including its 10-digit Japanese format. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3 even when the description mentions no parameter details.

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 states a clear verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('patent divisional-application information'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patent_progress or get_patent_documents. However, the word 'information' is vague about what is actually retrieved, leaving the purpose at a minimum-viable level.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid Japanese application number. The description offers no context or exclusions.

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