search_moves

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

The description carries full behavioral burden because no annotations are provided. It discloses only that the search is substring-based and targets display names; it says nothing about read-only behavior, result shape, limit application, case sensitivity, or edge cases. This is a thin behavioral profile for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 filler. Its one sentence clearly conveys the core operation and matching behavior, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 basic search tool, the description covers the operation and the key query behavior, and the schema supplies the parameters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what results contain or how the limit affects them, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full call contract.

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 0%, so the tool description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter is matched as a substring against move display names, which adds real meaning. However, it does not explain the semantics of the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema default, so compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb ('search'), a concrete resource ('move display names'), and the matching mode ('substring'), so an agent can distinguish this from get_move and search_pokemon. The scope is precise and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'substring search' suggests it is appropriate for partial or inexact move-name lookup. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite relevant siblings like get_move and search_pokemon.

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