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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description consistently says it performs a damage roll. However, it does not disclose side effects such as chat output, resource consumption, or whether a result is returned, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage sequence following immediately. There is no filler or repetition of schema text.

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 simple three-parameter roll tool with no output schema, the description covers the required prerequisite, the triggering condition, and the critical-case behavior. An agent has enough information to call it at the correct point in the attack flow.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining how to obtain itemId via actor-get and by clarifying the critical parameter's role in a crit flow, adding value 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 names the exact verb and resource ('Roll damage for a weapon/spell') and ties the action to the attack-then-damage flow. This clearly distinguishes it from dnd5e-roll-attack and other roll tools in the sibling list.

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?

It explicitly says to call after dnd5e-roll-attack confirms a hit, and gives the critical alternative ('set critical=true for crits'). It also provides a prerequisite ('Use actor-get FIRST to find itemId'), though it does not contrast with other item-usage tools like dnd5e-item-use.

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