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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a specific behavioral detail: 'variants are MAP-step labels by index,' which enriches understanding of the output. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose ('List an actor's weapon strikes') followed by two sentences of valuable context (PF2e scope and relationship to roll tools). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description covers the key return element (strike slug and variants) and its purpose. It doesn't detail the full return structure, but for a simple listing tool with one parameter, it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly and understand the output's relevance.

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% with actorId described as 'Actor ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List an actor's weapon strikes.' It also specifies it is PF2e-specific and identifies its role as the source of the strike slug used by roll tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform rolls.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain strike slugs for pf2e-roll-strike and pf2e-roll-strike-damage. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the association with roll tools gives strong guidance on its typical use case.

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