pokeapi-mcp-server

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: AND-combination of filters, strict token matching semantics for query, and the crucial edge case that a query without any categorical filter returns an empty result. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to call the tool correctly.

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?

Four sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the critical behavioral details (AND logic, empty-result edge case) follow in order of importance. Every sentence carries information that isn't in the schema. Slightly denser than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 multi-filter search tool with an output schema present, the description is near-complete: it covers the filter surface, output contents, query semantics, and the required-filter edge case. Pagination is already documented in the schema via offset/limit descriptions, so nothing critical is missing. Only minor explicit alternative-routing guidance would push it to a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining that filters combine with AND logic and that at least one categorical filter is required when using query — semantic constraints the schema's per-property descriptions do not convey. It also groups the filter parameters into named categories, aiding comprehension.

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 specific verb (filter) + resource (Pokémon) and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (generation, type, regional pokédex, egg group). Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* tools by noting it returns names and Pokédex numbers for follow-up pokeapi_get_pokemon calls — an agent can tell this is the search tool versus the ID-retrieval tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'Returns names and Pokédex numbers suitable for follow-up pokeapi_get_pokemon calls' signals a search-then-fetch workflow and implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_tools. It does not explicitly state the exclusion condition (e.g., 'use pokeapi_get_pokemon when you already know the name/ID'), so the routing guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with them — no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that results are English-only, distinguishing full vs. short effect text, and revealing the hidden-ability flag/slot structure in the returned ability record. It doesn't cover error behavior, but the annotation safety profile lowers that burden.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste: the first packs purpose plus the full return-value inventory, the second adds the cross-tool sourcing hint. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns, how to address it) is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present to cover return shapes, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call the tool: the lookup identifier format, the source of valid names, and the contents of the response. For a single-parameter read-only API tool with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing.

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 the parameter format (lowercase hyphenated name or numeric ID) is already documented. The description adds real value by explaining where valid identifiers come from (the abilities array of pokeapi_get_pokemon) and confirming both lookup routes (by name or numeric ID), which goes beyond the bare schema baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get ability details') and enumerates the exact data returned: full and short English effect text, generation introduced, and the Pokémon list with hidden-ability flag and slot. Among siblings that target distinct resources (items, moves, natures, Pokémon, type matchups), the purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides the key workflow linkage: 'Ability names are returned by pokeapi_get_pokemon in the abilities array,' telling an agent exactly where to source valid identifiers before calling this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use phrasing or named exclusions, but the resource distinction among siblings makes the usage context clear.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (effect text, category, cost, fling power, attributes, sprite URL, holding Pokémon), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. There is zero wordiness—every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient. It communicates the core behavior and return content clearly. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%—the parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the lowercase hyphenated format and numeric ID option. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It is consistent but not additive.

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 fetches item details by name or numeric ID and enumerates the specific data returned (effect text, category, cost, etc.). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pokeapi_get_pokemon or pokeapi_get_ability, which target different resources.

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 purpose is so resource-specific that usage is unambiguous—agents will naturally select this for item queries. However, the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, relying on the clear naming convention. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the performance warning that include_learners defaults to false because the list can be large, and clarifies that the tool returns full English effect text. No contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first front-loads the primary function and returned fields, the second explains the optional flag with a rationale, and the third gives a sourcing hint. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given a simple identifier-only query, an output schema that documents return values, and annotations for safety, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and identifier sourcing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are well-documented (identifier format, include_learners default). The description adds no new meaning beyond reinforcing the identifier format and the include_learners behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb-resource pair (get move details) and enumerates the specific fields returned (type, damage class, power, accuracy, etc.). It also differentiates from siblings by noting that move names can be obtained from pokeapi_get_pokemon, so the agent knows this is the dedicated move-detail getter.

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?

Implicitly states when to use: to fetch details for a specific move. It also directs the agent to pokeapi_get_pokemon as the source of move names, aiding workflow. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead' or when-not statement, but the resource distinction from sibling get_* tools is self-evident.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the list-all behavior and the stat modification percentages, but these are largely covered by the schema description ('Omit to list all 25 natures'). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations; no contradictions.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the list behavior and a domain note. The third sentence about competitive team-building is somewhat tangential but short; overall it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (single retrieval vs. list) and the value of the data. It doesn't describe the output format, but the output schema already handles that, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description fully explains the identifier parameter, including the omit-to-list behavior. The description repeats and elaborates slightly on the stat effects, but adds no new semantic guidance for parameter selection or formatting beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (get nature details) and specifies exactly what those details are (stat boost/reduction percentages and berry flavors). The sibling tools are for other entities (pokemon, abilities, etc.), so there is no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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 explains when to omit the identifier (to list all natures) and provides context about natures being critical for team-building. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling names and the description's specificity make the intended usage clear.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description builds on that by adding behavioral details: 'fully denormalized' output, the fallback to the most recent English entry when a game version is missing, and the size rationale for include_moves. No contradiction, though it doesn't mention error handling—not required given 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 dense paragraph, but every sentence is informative. It front-loads the main purpose and then covers parameters and alternatives. Could be broken into bullet points for readability, but it's not wasteful or tangential.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, an existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core functionality, parameter guidance, and the pointer to the sibling discovery tool. It doesn't explicitly address error cases or limits, but those are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly, especially with the output schema present.

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 adds real value: it specifies the identifier format with examples ('bulbasaur', 'mr-mime'), explains the default for include_moves and its large size, and clarifies game_version fallback behavior. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pokémon') while enumerating the returned data fields in detail. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling pokeapi_find_pokemon by noting that discovery is handled there, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use pokeapi_find_pokemon for discovery by type, generation, or egg group before calling this tool, providing a clear when-not and alternative. It also explains parameter behavior (include_moves default, game_version fallback), leaving no ambiguity about usage.

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, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and determinism. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it notes that defensive multipliers are correctly composed for dual-type Pokémon (e.g., Fire/Flying vs Rock = 4×), which informs the agent about edge-case handling. It also asserts the output covers both offensive and defensive breakdowns, which is not in 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by input requirements and a crucial note about dual-type composition. Every sentence contributes necessary information; there is zero fluff or redundancy. The structure moves from 'what' to 'how' to 'edge case'—ideal for quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter, mutually-exclusive input tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary usage details: both input options, exclusivity, and the complex dual-type composition behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description is complete and leaves no ambiguous call scenarios.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for the type parameter ('fire', 'psychic') and clarifying that Pokémon identifiers can be names or dex numbers—though the schema already states this. It also reiterates the mutual exclusivity in a clearer, more explicit way than the schema's 'Provide this or pokemon, not both.' The examples and exclusivity reinforcement are helpful for agent disambiguation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full offensive and defensive type effectiveness breakdown.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., get_pokemon, get_move) which serve different data needs. The resource is precisely a type-effectiveness lookup, not a generic Pokémon info tool.

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 provides clear input context—'Provide either a type name... or a Pokémon identifier'—and explicitly states the exclusivity requirement ('Exactly one of type or pokemon must be provided'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the purpose is self-sufficient and distinct from siblings, so the absence of exclusions is minor.

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