search_priority_moves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds moves but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or what 'all moves' entails (e.g., completeness, filtering). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'min_priority' fully documented in the schema (type, default, description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining priority values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

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: 'Find all moves with priority (moves that go before normal moves).' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('moves with priority'), and explains what priority means. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_move' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' beyond the priority focus.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for finding options when you need to outspeed an opponent.' This suggests when to use it (for speed advantage scenarios) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools is made, leaving the agent to infer context.

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