Get 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 discloses the default return behavior ('parsed data') and the option to include raw Markdown, but does not cover error handling, exact response shape, or whether both id and name can be used together.

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?

Two concise sentences: first delivers the core action and examples, second explains the format option. Zero wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Adequately covers the essential usage for a simple lookup tool: identification methods, return format expectations. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain what 'parsed data' actually contains, which is a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only format has a description). The description adds practical meaning by giving id/name examples and explaining format's effect. It does not clarify whether id and name are mutually exclusive, but the 'or' phrasing implies it.

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?

Specifically says 'Get an entry by id (e.g. "025") or name (e.g. "pikachu")' – a clear verb+resource with identification methods that distinguishes it from siblings like get_base_stats or get_evolution_chain.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for fetching a single Pokémon entry by id or name, with a format option. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context leaves little ambiguity.

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