Compare Pokémon

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 does disclose the output format (Markdown table with types and all base stats) and the valid input count, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior for missing/invalid IDs, ordering of results, or whether all base stats includes hidden stats or just visible ones.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the output format. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys both purpose and return format. It covers the range of inputs and the content of the returned table. Minor gaps like ordering or missing-entry behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 fully documents the single 'ids' parameter (pattern, min/max, description). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 action (compare), target (Pokémon entries), valid input count (2–6), and output (Markdown table). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pokemon (single entry) and rank_by_stat (ranking, not direct comparison).

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 intended use is implied by 'Compare 2–6 entries', suggesting it is for multi-entry comparison rather than single-entry lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_base_stats or rank_by_stat, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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