Get base stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (numbers) and input modes (id or name), which is minimal but functional for a simple read operation. It does not address edge cases like 'not found' or precedence when both id and name are provided, nor explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or redundant detail. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output.

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, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape. It lacks edge-case behavior, such as not-found handling or parameter precedence, and does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only (since no annotations are present). The output schema is also absent, so the return structure in the description is the only guide.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that either 'id' or 'name' can be used, which clarifies the parameter usage. However, it does not specify name matching semantics (exact vs partial) or what happens if both are given, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 'Return { hp, attack, defense, spAtk, spDef, speed, total } as numbers for an id or name,' which is a specific verb ('return') and resource ('base stats'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_pokemon or compare_pokemon. It also scopes the input to an id or name, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is used by providing an id or name, which is the core usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over get_pokemon, search_by_name, or compare_pokemon. The guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

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