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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds 'No auth required; fair-use free API,' which is minor behavioral context, and lists return fields, which is useful but not strictly behavioral. It doesn't contradict annotations, so the addition is modest.

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 informative and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then listing return fields, and providing concrete examples. It is slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place by clarifying usage or output. 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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it specifies the input format (name or ID, hyphenation), enumerates returned fields, gives examples, and notes auth/fair-use. 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 coverage is 100%: the parameter description already explains name_or_id with examples and hyphenation rules. The description repeats this and adds illustrative examples with power values, but it doesn't add essential meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific action (get detailed data) on a specific resource (900+ Pokemon moves) and includes examples that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like pokeapi.pokemon.detail, which are about Pokemon, species, or type matchups. The scope is 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?

While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this for moves, not for Pokemon details,' the purpose and examples make it clear that this is the tool for move data. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by being move-specific, and the examples reinforce when to call it. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' but the context is strong.

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