get_moves_learned_by_pokemon

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

The description is a read operation, but with no annotations, the description provides no explicit safety cues or behavioral traits (e.g., 'retrieves data without side effects'). It lacks details about ordering, pagination, or rate limits, though the tool's purpose is inherently non-destructive.

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 sentence of 18 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of moves with methods). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the expected response structure, but it does not.

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 sole parameter 'name_or_id' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the tool name and description imply it is a Pokémon identifier. The description adds meaning by clarifying the parameter's role, even though it doesn't explicitly describe the parameter format.

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 all moves a Pokémon can learn, grouped by learn method. It specifies the resource (moves learned by Pokémon) and action (get), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_move (single move) or list_moves (all moves).

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 you need a Pokémon's learnset), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as get_move for individual move details or list_moves for general move lists. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are mentioned.

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