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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral note beyond the annotations: 'Damage rolls carry no isCritical/isFumble flags.' This helps an agent avoid misinterpreting roll metadata. The annotations provide minimal signal (all hints false), so this extra disclosure is valuable, though it does not describe chat-side effects or return payload.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The PF2e scope is front-loaded, followed by the action, required input source, optional flag, and a useful caveat. 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?

For a roll tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call path: required slug source, critical behavior, and the lack of status flags on damage rolls. The schema already documents actorId and showInChat defaults, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the slug parameter by pointing to pf2e-list-strikes as the source, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the critical parameter's effect, reinforcing but adding little beyond the schema's own 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Roll damage for a weapon strike'), scopes it to PF2e, and distinguishes it from sibling pf2e-roll-strike by focusing on damage rather than the attack roll. It also tells the agent where to get the required slug, so the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 gives clear operational guidance: obtain the slug from pf2e-list-strikes and set critical=true for critical damage. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over pf2e-roll-strike, but the 'damage' wording plus the sibling name makes the intended usage evident.

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