PoGoBud

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what content comes back (dates, raid bosses, bonuses), but says nothing about freshness, cache behavior, or data source for a 'now' tool.

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 that front-loads the resource and scope, with the returned content listed succinctly at the end. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no-param, read-only query tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough (scope plus return contents) for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around refresh timing and what 'coming up' spans.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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 clear resource (Pokémon GO events) with a temporal scope ('happening now and coming up'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It also names the payload fields (dates, raid bosses, bonuses). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling raids_now.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The temporal scope implies it is for current/upcoming event lookups, but with raids_now and rocket_lineup as siblings the definition never says when to pick this over those.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope by disclosing what it returns (counters plus required trainer count), but says nothing about result format, ordering, or limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence packing purpose, scope, and return contents with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 only one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents (attackers, defenders, healers, trainer count), which compensates for the missing output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or format of results.

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%, with the 'boss' parameter documented and example keys given, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the boss is a Dynamax/Gigantamax Max Battle boss, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's 'Max boss key or name'.

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?

States a clear purpose: 'Best attackers, defenders and healers for one Dynamax or Gigantamax Max Battle boss, and how many trainers it needs.' The Max Battle scoping implicitly separates it from raid_counters, but it never names the sibling, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring boss-type from wording.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one ... Max Battle boss' and the singular-boss scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus raid_counters or the other siblings, nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope by listing return fields, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as data freshness or form-resolution rules.

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 that front-loads the resource and lists returned data in a compact series. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the full set of returned fields an agent needs. Nothing about calling the tool correctly is left unclear.

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%, and the schema itself documents that the 'pokemon' parameter accepts a name or id with examples. The description's phrase 'one Pokémon form' hints that form-specific names are valid, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (one Pokémon form) and enumerates the exact data returned (types, base stats, max CP, weaknesses, movesets, raid matchups), making it easy to distinguish from event/raid-list siblings. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so it falls short of a fully explicit 'get' action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool rather than max_counters, raid_counters, or the other siblings. The agent must infer from the tool name and output list that this is for retrieving a single Pokémon's details.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of the returned payload (counters, trainer count, weaknesses, catch CP) adds genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return-value summary is front-loaded and the parameter guidance follows immediately, so an agent can extract both the capability and the invocation detail in a single pass.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the outputs, and the tier default is documented in the schema. What is missing is positioning relative to the sibling counter/list tools, which would help an agent choose correctly among the six raid-adjacent tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete boss-value examples (dialga, giratina-origin, mewtwo-mega-x, shadow-raikou) that illustrate the accepted ID format, but says nothing about the tier parameter or its default.

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 specific resource and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: best counters, required trainer count, weaknesses, and catch CP for one raid boss. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never differentiates itself from sibling tools like max_counters or pokemon_info, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for one raid boss' suggests the caller already has a specific boss in mind, which implicitly separates it from list-style tools such as raids_now. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling max_counters that likely handles a different battle type.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the 31-day forward window, which is genuinely useful scope framing, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or how live the 'right now' data actually is.

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 zero filler, front-loaded on the resource followed by the scope and the returned fields. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately signals the returned content (bosses, trainers needed, weaknesses) and the time range. The one missing element is disambiguation from raid_counters/max_counters, which the description should have addressed.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for parameter documentation to cover, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is invoked with no arguments and returns a time-scoped result set.

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?

Names a specific resource (raid bosses in Pokémon GO) and an explicit temporal scope ('right now and in the next 31 days'), plus the payload fields ('trainers needed and weaknesses'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like raid_counters or max_counters, which plausibly serve overlapping raid data.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. With five siblings including raid_counters (which also covers weaknesses) and events_now (which also covers 'now' content), the agent has to guess which of the overlapping tools to call.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds what the result contains (slots plus recommended counters) but says nothing about data freshness — relevant for a rotation-based Rocket line-up dataset — or result size.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second gives the one actionable parameter instruction. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return shape (per-slot Pokémon and best counters), and the single optional parameter is handled. Minor residual gap: no mention of whether line-ups are time-limited/rotating, which matters for a Rocket-themed dataset.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by stating the default behavior when `key` is omitted (return every line-up), which the schema does not express. It stops short of explaining key format nuances beyond the schema's own examples.

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 names a specific resource (Team GO Rocket line-ups) and enumerates scope in parentheses (Giovanni, leaders, typed grunts), plus what the payload contains (Pokémon per slot, best counters). It is clearly separable from siblings like raid_counters and max_counters by resource, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Omit `key` for every line-up' tells the agent how to get the full list, which is genuine usage guidance for the one optional parameter. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings statement (e.g. raid_counters vs this for Rocket battles), so selection is left implied by the tool name.

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