Find legal Pokémon that learn a move (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of disclosure. It explains the data source (Champions dex), that move stats are included when known, and the important caveat that Champions publishes no per-move bans. This provides meaningful insight beyond the schema, though it omits potential edge cases like unknown move/regulation handling.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the primary action, followed by illustrative examples, data source details, an important note, and the default. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain return values. It partially does by stating 'list every Pokémon' and noting that move stats are included, but it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., names vs. objects) or behavior for empty results/unknown values. This leaves some gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter meanings with examples and the default regulation, but does not add substantial new details beyond the schema. It does clarify the intended usage of the parameters in context.

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 ('list') and resource ('every Pokémon that is legal in that regulation AND can learn the move'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_legal_pokemon and list_legal_moves by combining both move and regulation filters, and provides concrete example questions.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining the inputs (move and regulation) and showing example queries like 'who can run Fake Out in M-B?'. It also mentions the default regulation and clarifies the legality semantics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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