List legal Pokémon in a regulation (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source ('reads the regulation's legal-Pokémon allowlist directly'), the enriched return fields (National Dex number, typing, base stats, abilities), default behavior, and optional filtering. It could additionally state that the operation is read-only/no side effects, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating listing operation.

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 main purpose, and includes concrete examples, a sibling reference, and default behavior without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, yet the description explains what the response contains (enriched Pokémon data with specific fields). It also covers filtering behavior, default regulation, and the relationship to list_legal_moves. For a read-only list tool with three optional parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete filter examples ('Dragon', 'mega'), clarifying that filters are optional, and reinforcing the default for `regulation`. This goes beyond merely restating the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('Pokémon legal in a Pokémon Champions regulation'), includes concrete examples like 'm-b', and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool list_legal_moves. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings.

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 provides clear context by naming the complement (list_legal_moves), giving example questions ('what Fairy types are legal in M-B?'), and noting the default regulation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other siblings like check_legality or get_pokemon, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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