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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It explains critical outcomes (isCritical/isFumble) but does not disclose side effects like chat posting (only the schema mentions showInChat) or whether the roll modifies any state. The behavior of a dice roll is implied but not fully specified.

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 short sentences plus a terse critical-success/failure mapping. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'PF2e only' scoping is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It hints at the result via isCritical/isFumble but does not specify the full return shape (e.g., dice total, success/failure). For a simple roll tool this is acceptable, though more detail would be helpful.

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 already has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing how to obtain actorId via actor-list/actor-get, which clarifies the intended workflow beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Roll a Pathfinder 2e skill check.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling roll tools (save, strike, perception) by naming the skill check domain, and the 'PF2e only' qualifier prevents cross-system confusion.

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 a prerequisite ('Use actor-list/actor-get first for actorId') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pf2e-roll-save or pf2e-roll-strike. The tool name implies the context, but the description leaves the choice of roll type to the agent's inference.

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