Optimize speed SP spread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('resolves unambiguous current-meta base-forme mistakes') and the core calculation behavior, but does not mention safety, side effects, or limitations (e.g., how it simulates speed modifiers). It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every clause earns its place, including the sibling-tool guidance.

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 captures the essential purpose and a critical prerequisite, but for a complex tool with nested schema and a separate output schema, it leaves out important context such as how the target should be specified or what the result contains. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still feels minimal for the tool's complexity.

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% at the top level, and the description does not compensate. It only implies that 'Speed SP' and 'nature' are relevant inputs and references 'target' generically, but does not explain relation, spBudget, allowedNatures, or context. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested objects and 6 parameters.

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 ('Find the minimum Speed SP and nature') with a clear resource ('Speed SP') and outcome ('outspeed, speed tie, or underspeed a target'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like optimize_offensive_spread and optimize_survival_spread by focusing on speed-related optimization.

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?

Explicitly advises using get_pokemon_options first for current-format Mega/forme requests, providing a clear when-to-use alternative. The note about resolving base-forme mistakes gives additional context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to other speed-focused siblings like get_speed_tiers.

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