get_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return data (power, accuracy, etc.) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a database or API.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action and return data in one efficient sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating lookup purpose from return details for even clearer readability.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return data but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context, which would be helpful for an agent to operate effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'name' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for move lookup, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a move by name'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_priority_moves' or 'get_type_effectiveness', which might also involve move-related queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'search_priority_moves' for filtering moves by priority or 'get_type_effectiveness' for type-related data, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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