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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what the response includes ('all results with ranges and weights'), which is not present in the schema or annotations. This is a meaningful addition without contradicting any annotation.

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: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a necessary usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the core function and has zero filler or repetition. 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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to obtain the required ID. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema description for tableId is 100% covered ('Roll table ID (from roll-table-list)'), and the tool description reinforces the same prerequisite. While the description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, it reiterates the workflow. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal but not substantial added value for parameter understanding.

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 ('Get full details of a roll table') and resource, and distinguishes itself by specifying the content ('including all results with ranges and weights'). It also implies differentiation from roll-table-list and roll-table-roll by focusing on details rather than listing or rolling. The prerequisite to use roll-table-list is explicit, which further clarifies scope.

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 by instructing the agent to call roll-table-list FIRST to obtain the table ID, establishing a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for rolling, use roll-table-roll), but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer the correct choice among siblings.

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