Lookup Number Relation

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description need not restate safety. Beyond that it only names the upstream API; it says nothing about what a 'relation' returns (e.g. a single number vs. a set), whether lookups can fail for unknown numbers, or any rate/coverage limits. With no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence with no filler and the key concept (resolving number relationships) front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too terse to carry its weight.

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?

With three required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the resolution returns and in what form. It only identifies the source API, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or interpret relationType outcomes.

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 all three parameters carry enum constraints and descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Resolve official case number relationships') and names the data source ('JPO case number reference API'), so the agent knows it is a reference-resolution utility. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_patent_family or resolve_applicant_code, nor does it explain what a 'relationship' actually yields.

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 named alternative among the 25 sibling lookup tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for translating one case number into its related numbers.

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