find_encounters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that results are 'grouped by version and method,' but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, or address error behavior for invalid inputs. The 'Find' and 'Returns' wording suggests a query, but this is not fully explicit.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It contains no filler and every line adds information. The structure is consistent with typical tool descriptions and easy to parse.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown in detail), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool finds, what input it takes, and how results are organized. It does not need to explain return values in depth because an output schema exists, and the grouping detail adds useful context beyond that.

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 input schema only provides a type and title for 'name_or_dex' with no description. The tool description compensates fully by defining it as 'Pokemon name or national dex number,' which is essential for correct invocation. With 0% schema description coverage, this addition is highly valuable and complete.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Find wild encounter locations for a Pokemon.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pokemon or get_moves, which serve different purposes. The 'Returns' line further clarifies the output scope.

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—if you need encounter locations for a Pokemon, use this tool—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose statement.

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