Calculate Pokémon Champions stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: 1) it includes stage-modified stats only when battle state is present (context-dependent), and 2) it resolves unambiguous current-meta base-forme mistakes server-side. These are non-obvious and useful. It does not mention side effects or auth, but as a calculation tool that is unlikely. The correction behavior is well-highlighted.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first presents the core function, the second provides guidance on when to use alternatives and discloses correction behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema with two parameters, and an output schema is provided. The description is sufficient for understanding the primary use case and mentions the key context-dependency (stage-modified stats). It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning that corrections are reported via inputCorrections (a behavioral detail in the schema), but overall it covers the essential context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 description names the key inputs 'species, nature, and SP', which maps to pokemon.name, pokemon.nature, and pokemon.sp. It also hints that battle state (likely context) affects stage-modified stats. However, it does not explain the structure of the context object or the exact SP format, leaving those to the schema. Given the context signal of 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more, but it adds some value beyond parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Calculate level-50 Pokémon Champions stats from species, nature, and SP', and further specifies that stage-modified stats are included when battle state is present. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pokemon_options by explicitly mentioning that for current-format builds/Mega/formes, get_pokemon_options should be preferred.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to prefer get_pokemon_options ('For user requests about current-format builds or Mega/formes, prefer get_pokemon_options first') and explains the correction behavior. However, it does not contrast with other siblings like optimization tools (e.g., optimize_offensive_spread) or check_damage_matchup, so it lacks full coverage of when not to use this tool.

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