List legal moves in a regulation (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals output structure (type, category, base power, count), the default regulation, and the semantic nuance of 'legal moves' being the learnable pool. The note about no per-move bans is a non-obvious behavioral trait that helps avoid misinterpretation. This goes well beyond schema information.

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 (three sentences) yet information-dense. The main action verb comes first, followed by scope, output fields, filtering options, example queries, and a critical clarification. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, illustrating usage, and preventing a misunderstanding. 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?

For a list-style tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and a crucial domain nuance. Given the sibling tools, it clearly positions itself for move-pool queries and provides sufficient context for an agent to select it and interpret results.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter filtering options (name substring, type, category) and the default regulation, which are already in schema descriptions. It adds no new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema, so no elevation beyond baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource ('moves available in a Pokémon Champions regulation'). It explicitly states the scope (every move learnable by at least one legal Pokémon) and differentiates from siblings by focusing on the move pool rather than individual legality checks or Pokémon listings. Examples of questions it answers further cement its distinct purpose.

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 explicit usage context with examples: 'Answers "what Fairy moves are usable in M-B?" or "is Glacial Lance legal here?"'. Notably clarifies a key scope limitation ('Champions publishes no per-move bans') and that the result is the learnable pool, steering users away from expecting a curated allowlist. This is strong guidance compared to typical descriptions.

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