Check damage matchup

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: SP conversion to standard EVs and that item legality is not validated. It doesn't mention side effects or error handling, but this is a pure calculation, and output schema covers return values. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the conversion.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a usage guideline and a caveat. No redundant information.

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 description covers the core purpose, a suggested workflow, and a legality caveat. Given the rich input schema (which documents parameters and nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate. It could mention format or that it's read-only, but those are less critical.

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 description does not enumerate parameters, but it clarifies that 'Pokémon Champions SP' is used and that item choices are accepted as provided, which gives context for the `sp` and `item` fields. The move and context parameters are not addressed. Since the input schema itself has detailed descriptions for each property, the base coverage is decent, but the tool description only partially compensates given the 0% schema_description_coverage.

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 performs a forward damage calculation with a specific EV conversion, using a verb ('Run') and resource ('damage calculation'). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_stats by focusing on damage matchup, and the name reinforces it.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call get_pokemon_options first for build questions and use canonical formes/builds, providing an alternative workflow. It also notes item choices are accepted as provided and not legality-validated, giving context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other damage/stat tools.

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