Check regulation legality (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads purely from local JSON (offline), returns an error if the regulation file is missing and tells to run the scraper, and explicitly states when per-move/per-item data is absent rather than guessing. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not describe the return format or other potential side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by essential edge-case caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers important operational aspects: offline source, missing-file error, and explicit handling of absent data. It does not specify the exact return value structure, but the purpose and key edge cases are well enough described for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Sibling context also helps frame its role.

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 per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions optional moves/items and gives an example regulation, but these details already appear in the schema. It does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema 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 action: checking whether a Pokémon, plus optional moves/items, is legal under a given regulation, with an example ('m-b'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_legal_moves or list_legal_pokemon by focusing on a single check rather than listing all legal options.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need a legality check for a specific Pokémon and optional moves/items—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context about offline operation and error behavior, but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.

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