calculate_powerup_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cost is species-independent, explains the surcharge/discount logic for Shadow/Purified/Lucky, and clarifies the exclusivity of Shadow vs Lucky/Purified. This is strong behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't mention edge cases like level caps or whether Candy XL is always included.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then explains modifiers. Every sentence adds value, though the modifier rules could be slightly more structured. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key behavioral rules and parameter semantics. It doesn't mention return value structure or level constraints, but the core information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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. It explains the meaning of current_level and target_level implicitly, and explicitly explains the semantics of the lucky, shadow, and purified boolean flags, including their interactions. It doesn't detail the format of the level numbers (e.g., 0.5 increments), but the core parameter meanings are well covered.

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 verb ('calculate') and resource ('power-up cost'), and clearly defines the inputs (current_level, target_level) and outputs (Stardust/Candy/Candy XL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_cp and calculate_move_damage by focusing on power-up costs.

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 explains the cost model's independence from species and details the modifiers for Shadow, Purified, and Lucky, which tells the agent when to set those flags. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for power-up cost calculations.

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