Calculate Pokemon Champions damage

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the meaningful trait 'auditable' and specifies the doubles format, but it does not explain what auditable means in practice, such as whether a calculation trace is returned or how modifiers are applied. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded verb, no filler. Every phrase adds distinguishing context: auditable, generation-zero, Pokemon Champions, doubles, damage calculation, Showdown-format set.

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 tool has 15 parameters, nested position objects, and zero schema-based parameter descriptions, yet the description provides only input format and mode. It does not explain the effect of the many optional modifiers, what 'auditable' entails, or what the output contains. Too sparse given 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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 15 parameters. It usefully identifies 'two Showdown-format sets', mapping to attacker_set and defender_set, but it does not clarify move, terrain, weather, reflect, position objects, or the many boolean modifiers. This leaves substantial ambiguity.

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 ('Run') and resource ('damage calculation'), and narrows scope with 'generation-zero Pokemon Champions doubles' and 'two Showdown-format sets'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling replay, meta, and team-evaluation tools.

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 phrase 'from two Showdown-format sets' implies the intended input and use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not name alternatives or explain when a damage calc is preferable to team evaluation or matchup analysis.

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