get_event_spawns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any additional behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling for no active events, data freshness). The description implies a read operation but does not confirm safety or other constraints.

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 very concise with one sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. While it could potentially include more context without being verbose, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Considering the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the core functionality (spawns from active events) sufficient for an agent given the presence of an output schema. However, terms like 'active events' could benefit from clarification (e.g., current time zone), but overall it is fairly complete for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so per guidelines baseline is 3. The overall description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already explains the optional filter by event type with examples.

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 retrieves Pokemon spawns from active events. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pokemon spawns from active events'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_current_events, the focus on spawns rather than events themselves provides implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_current_events, get_event_details), an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool is specifically for spawns and not for event details or event lists. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information provided.

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