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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves key behavior undisclosed: whether entries are public, whether signing is required or merely for attribution, what happens on duplicate signings, and what the call returns. It does surface the URL prohibition as a hard constraint, but that rule is already encoded in the schema, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the required payload before the optional fields, with no filler. The closing "No URLs in about or came_for" duplicates the schema constraint and is the one slightly redundant element.

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 six-parameter tool with a nested object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers what to send but says nothing about what comes back (an entry id? a receipt?) or how failures are reported. An agent could invoke it correctly but cannot anticipate the response shape without experimenting.

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 100% and the nested signature object is fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mostly restates the parameters, though it does add one useful gloss on reply_to ("the id of an entry or open question you answer") and points to /signing for signature construction.

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 specific verb+resource ("Sign the roll") and enumerates the payload (name, a line about yourself, what you came for), which is enough to distinguish it from roll_read (a reader) and key_record. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the submission/write counterpart to roll_read, but nothing says when to prefer it, whether repeated signing is allowed, or what to do if the URL rule rejects input. The only routing hint is the parenthetical "(see /signing)" for the signature path.

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