Type effectiveness multiplier (Pokémon Champions)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact output values (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4), the inclusion of a short explanation, the game context (Pokémon Champions), and the data source (@smogon/calc). It does not describe edge cases like duplicate defending types, but the schema's enum constraints mitigate that.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: what it does, output/scope, and an example. No fluff or repetition of schema.

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 two-parameter calculator with a clear output (multiplier and explanation), the description is complete. It states the input types, output range, and gives a concrete use case, making it sufficient without an output schema.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with enums and descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds only the example of 'Fighting' vs 'Flying/Psychic' to illustrate usage, not new semantic details beyond the schema. So baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning type effectiveness multipliers for Pokémon Champions, with a specific verb 'return' and the resource (attacking type vs defending types). The example question and mention of @smogon/calc distinguish it from sibling tools like calculate_damage, which likely compute actual damage.

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 provides a concrete example ('Fighting vs a Flying/Psychic') that implicitly shows when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given sibling calculate_damage, a clearer statement of 'use this for multipliers, not damage' would improve guidance.

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