get_pokemon_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, included information, Args, Returns) and uses minimal, focused sentences. Every sentence contributes meaning. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and included information more tightly, but overall it's efficient.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving comprehensive Pokémon data), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context and detailed return format. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'pokemon_name' refers to 'The name of the Pokémon to get information about.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the bare schema provides. However, it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., case sensitivity, special characters) or provide 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about a Pokémon'), and lists the types of information included (base stats, types, abilities, moves, evolution). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'simulate_battle', which serves a completely different purpose, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tool 'simulate_battle' is clearly different (simulation vs. information retrieval), there's no explicit mention of alternatives or context for usage decisions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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