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

Annotations declare it is not read-only, and the description's 'Create' correctly signals a mutation. However, the description does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as required permissions, whether creation fails if the name already exists, or what the response contains. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries some burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose and a useful example are front-loaded, making it immediately actionable. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description, combined with the schema, provides sufficient detail to call the tool correctly. It includes a concrete usage scenario. It does not mention defaults (e.g., formula defaults to '1d20') but the schema covers these, so the description is arguably complete.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds a concrete example of the 'formula' and 'results' with range pairs, clarifying the format beyond generic schema text, which justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb (create) and resource (roll table) and adds specifics about results and dice formula. It is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like roll-table-delete, roll-table-get, and roll-table-update, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage (when you want to create a new roll table) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like roll-table-update for existing tables. No exclusion criteria or context for when to use one over another is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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