poke_get_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is stating that the result includes the Pokemon that have the type, which tells the agent about response shape despite there being no output schema. It says nothing about lookup failure behavior for an invalid type.

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?

One sentence, zero padding, with the resource front-loaded ahead of the secondary return detail. 'info' is slightly vague, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers both what is queried and what is returned. No output schema exists, and the description adequately compensates by naming the associated Pokemon list.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with name-or-ID examples ('electric, fire, 10'). The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pokemon type info') plus the secondary payload ('which Pokemon have that type'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like poke_get_pokemon or poke_get_ability, though the resource noun makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for looking up a type and its members, but the description names no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternative sibling to prefer under other conditions. Minimum-viable guidance.

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