search_pokemon_by_ability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only search operation but doesn't disclose critical details like whether the search is case-sensitive, if it returns partial matches, what format the results take (e.g., list of names or full objects), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., Pokemon names, IDs, or full details), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., max results). For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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, with the 'ability' parameter clearly documented. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the search is based on 'a specific ability', but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ability names, examples, or search behavior (e.g., exact vs. substring matching). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Find') and resource ('Pokemon'), and specifies the search criterion ('that can have a specific ability'). It distinguishes itself from generic 'get_pokemon' by focusing on ability-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_dangerous_abilities' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'get_pokemon' (which might retrieve individual Pokemon data) or 'list_dangerous_abilities' (which might list abilities rather than Pokemon). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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