type_matchup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates an offensive damage multiplier, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's deterministic, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and schema coverage.

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 the complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely outputs numerical multipliers or type effectiveness, more context is needed to be fully usable by an agent.

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 undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention the 'attacking' and 'defending' parameters or explain their semantics (e.g., that 'attacking' is a single type string and 'defending' is an array of 1-2 type strings). No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Multiplicador de daño ofensivo' (offensive damage multiplier) using PokeAPI/type. It specifies a verb ('multiplicador') and resource ('daño ofensivo'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'calc_stats' or 'team_analysis' which might involve damage calculations. The Spanish phrasing is specific but not perfectly differentiated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions using PokeAPI/type, but it doesn't indicate scenarios for choosing this over other type-related tools (if any) or siblings like 'calc_stats' for broader calculations. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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