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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds the MAP penalty mechanics and the PF2e scope, but does not disclose side effects like chat posting (though showInChat parameter hints at it) or the nature of the result. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: it front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the prerequisite and MAP penalty details. No filler or redundant information; every clause 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?

For a roll tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, prerequisite, and MAP penalty mechanics. It omits explicit return-value details and chat-posting behavior, but these are partially inferable from the schema and typical roll semantics. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the slug origin and giving explicit MAP penalty values with agile modifiers, which goes beyond the schema's brief 'MAP step: 0, 1, or 2'.

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 action ('roll a weapon strike') and resource (weapon strike), explicitly scopes it to PF2e, and references a prerequisite sibling (pf2e-list-strikes) for obtaining the slug. This clearly differentiates it from other roll tools like pf2e-roll-strike-damage and pf2e-roll-save.

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 gives a direct prerequisite ('Get the slug from pf2e-list-strikes first') and details the mapIncrease values, which is essential for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for damage rolls) or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes this inferable.

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