Look up a held item (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the returned fields (effect, obtain method, category, holdability), the data source, and importantly explains the 'source' field and the @smogon/calc fallback lacking effect/location text. It also clarifies the effect of the optional regulation parameter. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond a simple 'looks up' statement.

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 dense but well-organized: the first sentence states the core purpose with examples, followed by return fields, data source/fallback nuance, and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes new information, and the purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the key return components (effect, how to obtain, category, holdability, source) and the fallback behavior. It also mentions the source of the data (Serebii) and the optional regulation legality check. This is sufficient for a user to understand what the tool returns and when the output might be incomplete, making it contextually complete for a lookup tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete example names for 'name' and explaining what the regulation id does (e.g., 'm-b' checks legality). This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions, enhancing practical understanding of how to use the parameters.

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 looks up a single Pokemon Champions held item by name, with concrete examples (e.g., 'Choice Scarf', 'Garchompite'). This specific verb-resource pairing ('look up a single... item') distinguishes it from siblings like list_items (listing multiple) and get_pokemon (Pokemon data).

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?

It specifies a clear use case: lookup by name with optional regulation filter, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from a list operation is evident through 'single' and by-name lookup. The mention of the fallback source also helps set expectations, though no sibling alternatives are directly referenced.

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