Search by name

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

No annotations are given, so the description must relay behavioral traits. It discloses the case-insensitive substring matching, but does not mention return format, edge cases (e.g., no matches), sorting, or explicit read-only assurance. Since it uses 'Return,' it implies a non-mutating operation, but additional behavioral details would be beneficial.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the action, resource, and matching constraint. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, exemplifying concise structure.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core matching behavior well. However, it omits information about return value format, result limits, and pagination, which are relevant for an agent consuming the output. This leaves a noticeable gap in completeness.

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 already describes the only parameter 'query' as a substring to match, and the description enriches this by specifying case-insensitivity and that matching targets the 'name' field. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Return entries'), the target resource ('whose name'), and the matching behavior ('contains the query (case-insensitive substring)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pokemon (exact lookup) and list_pokedex_entries (full list), 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 implicitly defines when to use this tool: when you need entries matching a case-insensitive substring of the name. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct matching semantics provide clear context for appropriate use.

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