Find Pokémon by substring search to discover species and forms when you don't know the exact name. Use it for browsing and identifying potential matches before fetching complete data.
Substring search across Pokemon display names. Use this for discovery/browsing when you don't know the exact name; use get_pokemon when you already know which Pokemon/form you want.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose substring matching behavior, but it does not mention result ordering, case sensitivity, limit semantics, or what a typical response looks like. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and the second provides routing guidance, making it easy to scan and act on.
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 search tool, the purpose and usage context are clear. However, with no output schema and no mention of result shape or limit behavior, an agent is left without some details needed to fully anticipate the call's outcome.
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 description must compensate. It clarifies that query is a substring over Pokemon display names, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or its default behavior, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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: 'Substring search across Pokemon display names.' It also clearly differentiates this tool from get_pokemon by contrasting substring discovery with exact-name lookup.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('discovery/browsing when you don't know the exact name') and when to use the alternative ('use get_pokemon when you already know which Pokemon/form you want').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.