calculate_move_damage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the calculation is deterministic, single-hit, and does not simulate a full battle, and it enumerates the multipliers involved. It does not discuss side effects, but this is a calculation tool where no meaningful side effects are expected.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every additional sentence adds useful disambiguation or parameter clarification. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a solid orientation: what the tool computes, what it does not do, and how the less obvious optional parameters are encoded. Minor gaps remain, such as a full list of allowed weather condition IDs and an explicit description of the return shape, but these are not blockers for correct use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for weather, mega_boost_types, and friendship_level, and implies dodging through the multiplier list. However, 13 parameters exist and several parameters such as attacker_shadow, defender_shadow, attacker_level, IVs, and the basic attacker/defender/move meanings are left to inference from their 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 concrete action and resource: 'Damage for one hit of `move` ... against `defender`' and further specifies the output as a full multiplier breakdown. It also explicitly distances itself from a battle simulator, which distinguishes this from a full-fight or broader simulation tool.

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 clearly defines the scope: a single deterministic hit, not a full fight, and says when optional inputs should be omitted. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when to use calculate_cp/calculate_powerup_cost instead, so it falls short of a fully explicit routing guideline.

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