get_evolution_chain

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It notes the return includes trigger conditions, which is helpful, but omits details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior for species without evolutions.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and return value. No extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function but lacks details on return structure, error scenarios, or parameter format. Adequate but could be more 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 has one parameter (name_or_id) with no description. The tool description does not clarify whether the parameter expects a name, ID, or format. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning.

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 the full evolution chain for a Pokémon species and specifies it returns trigger conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which focus on evolution chains.

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 implies usage when evolution chain data is needed for a species. No alternatives are mentioned, but given no sibling evolution tools exist, this is acceptable. It lacks guidance on invalid inputs or non-evolvable species.

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