get_breeding_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the filtering behavior of the 'game' parameter and what data is returned, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or the fact it is a read-only operation. Still, the behavior is straightforward and sufficiently transparent for a lookup tool.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. It might have mentioned edge cases or prerequisites, but the explanation is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly alongside sibling tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: name_or_dex is described as 'Pokemon name or national dex number,' and game is described as 'Optional game identifier for egg move filtering.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema definitions, which only provide titles.

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 starts with 'Summarize breeding details for a Pokemon,' which uses a specific verb (summarize) and resource (breeding details) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_moves or get_pokemon. It also details the return content (egg groups, hatch steps, egg moves), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context: use when you need breeding-related information for a Pokemon. It does not explicitly compare with siblings or state exclusions, but the tool's purpose is narrow and self-evident among the sibling tools, providing clear context without needing further alternative mentions.

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