Optimize survival SP spread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool optimizes only HP and defensive stats, and it specifies the canonical-forme requirement, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains, or assumptions about other stats, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 informative: the first states the core optimization goal, and the second gives a critical input-format guideline. There is no redundancy or filler, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters with deep nesting. The description covers only the basic optimization goal and the forme-canonicalization rule, leaving many optional parameters and usage nuances undocumented. For a tool of this complexity, the description is not complete enough.

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 parameter meaning. It gives only implicit hints: 'HP plus defense/special-defense' maps to defender SP stats and the defensiveStat parameter, and 'specified attack' maps to move. It does not explain spBudget, survivalThreshold, context, or allowedNatures, so the description is insufficient.

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 function: 'Find the minimum HP plus defense/special-defense SP allocation that survives a specified attack.' This uses a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource (defensive SP allocation), making it distinct from offensive or speed optimization tools. The additional note about canonical formes further clarifies its scope.

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 clear context: it is for defensive survival optimization, and it gives a concrete usage instruction to use canonical formes from get_pokemon_options for Mega/forme requests. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like optimize_offensive_spread or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully meet the 'when/when-not' standard.

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