pokewallet_api_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that credentials are never returned, which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it doesn't disclose the output format, whether this is a read-only operation, or any rate-limiting or connection status details, given an output schema exists.

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?

A single compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a safety boundary. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists to document return values, the description is reasonably complete. The tool is parameterless and simple. Minor gap: no mention of how this relates to authentication flows or whether it helps determine when other tools will work.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty, but the description still usefully clarifies what information is and is NOT returned (credentials excluded). With zero params, baseline is 4 and the description appropriately covers what's available without over-explaining.

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 states it returns public API information plus local authentication status, never credentials. The verb is implied ('return') and the resource (API info/auth status) is specified. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tool 'pokewallet_health' which likely provides related status/health information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explain when a user would want API info versus health status (sibling pokewallet_health), or when this would be a prerequisite. The context of use is entirely implied by the tool name.

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