getContestTypeByName

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not mention any limitations, error conditions (e.g., if name not found), or return format. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and how to use it.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the key parameter. A minor gap: it does not hint at the return structure, but this is acceptable for such a straightforward operation.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus meets the baseline but does not enrich it.

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 action ('Get information') and resource ('contest type'), with the retrieval method ('by its name'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools, which query other Pokemon resource types like Ability or Berry.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the sibling tools cover distinct resource types, so confusion is unlikely. The description lacks context like 'Use for fetching contest type details for contests or super contests.'

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