calc_damage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains auto physical/special classification, protean/tera_type STAB effects, item/weather influences, and the distinction between ko_chance and ko_chance_all_hits for multi-hit moves.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, but given the complexity (17 params), length is justified. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Very comprehensive: covers return values, multi-hit nuances, weather interactions, and prerequisites (aliases). No output schema exists, but description adequately explains what is returned.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning to key parameters like item (lists examples), weather (specifies effects), protean, tera_type (only affects attacker STAB), and others, significantly enhancing beyond the schema.

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 it calculates damage in opponent battles supporting multi-hit moves, and returns range per hit/cumulative and KO%. It distinguishes from sibling calc_accuracy by explicitly noting accuracy is separate.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: when to use (damage calculation with various factors), when not (accuracy handled by calc_accuracy), and explains behaviors like multi-hit KO chance weighting and the need for aliases for Japanese names.

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