poke_get_ability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes which Pokemon have the ability, which is useful return-shape context, but it does not describe rate limits, auth requirements, or full response format. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the key return content immediately.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level picture of what is returned: ability info and which Pokemon have it. However, it does not explain the return structure, lookup behavior (e.g., name vs. ID handling), or practical constraints. It is minimally adequate.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the ability name/ID and gives examples. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Pokemon ability info and which Pokemon have it.' It clearly distinguishes ability lookup from sibling tools like poke_get_pokemon, poke_get_type, and poke_get_generation by naming the ability resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by saying it gets ability info, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternative tools. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over poke_search_pokemon or poke_get_pokemon.

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