VGC meta snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it uses Pikalytics primarily, falls back to Smogon usage stats, and caches data for ~24 hours. This adds transparency beyond a simple 'list top Pokemon' statement.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes relevant details (sources, fallback, caching) without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers what is returned (top Pokemon with usage/win rates) and provides contextual details about data sources and caching. Although it doesn't explicitly describe the response structure, the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters (limit and format) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it returns top Pokemon in the current VGC metagame with usage/win rates. The verb and resource are specific, and the mention of usage/win rates distinguishes it from sibling tools like pokemon_deep_dive or analyze_team.

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: it is for retrieving current VGC meta data, with details about data sources and caching. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the context makes it obvious when this tool would be appropriate (e.g., quick meta overview).

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