List available regulations (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the local file-based nature, the 'cheap' operational cost, and the output structure. While it doesn't explicitly mention side effects or errors, the listing operation is clearly read-only and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare list.

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 long and immediately states the verb and resource. The first sentence packs in essential details (file location, returned metadata, counts), and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output contents, data source, and usage context. It tells the agent exactly what to expect from the response (metadata fields and counts), making it complete for a simple listing operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits parameter explanations since none exist, and the schema trivially covers all parameters. No additional semantic detail is needed.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('Pokémon Champions regulations'), and adds detail about the data source ('JSON files in regulations/') and the exact contents (metadata and counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on regulation metadata and explicitly positioning itself as a precursor to check_legality.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Cheap way to know what legality data this server has before calling check_legality.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and names the relevant successor tool, giving clear guidance for tool selection.

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