List held items (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Serebii scraped page), what each item includes (effect, how to obtain, category), and the optional regulation legality marking. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonable context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Each sentence adds value: what is listed, what data each item provides, and how to filter/use regulation. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately explains the item content and filtering semantics for a read-only list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. It could mention includeNonHeld explicitly in the narrative, but the schema already covers it, and the description still gives a solid overall picture.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the category filter using actual categories (Hold Items, Mega Stones, Berries) and clarifies that the regulation id marks which items are legal there, going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Browse the items a Pokémon can hold in Pokémon Champions' and enumerates categories (Hold Items, Mega Stones, Berries), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_item (singleton item lookup) and list_legal_moves. It also states the kinds of questions it answers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear use cases by giving example questions like 'what berries can I hold?' and explaining optional filtering and regulation marking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'for a single item, use get_item'), so no direct when-not guidance is given.

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