Inspect cached metagame evidence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: data is cached, includes source dates, and is regulation-verified. The caveat 'Unverified usage is contextual only' is a valuable transparency signal beyond the annotation.

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 deliver the core purpose, scoping, and an important caveat without any filler. The main action is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essence. The main gaps are undocumented parameters and the absence of explicit guidance about refreshing cached data, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints that 'pokemon' is the core entity via 'per-Pokemon usage,' but it does not explain 'limit' or 'profile_id' at all, leaving agents to guess their roles.

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 a specific action ('Query') and a distinct resource ('cached team sets and per-Pokemon usage') with additional detail about source dates and regulation verification. This clearly separates it from the replay, team evaluation, and damage calculation siblings.

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 clearly frames this as a read-only cached evidence lookup, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer vgc_refresh_meta or vgc_status, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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