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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that the log is 'public', that entries come 'in order', and what fields each entry has, which is useful. It omits access prerequisites (does the caller need to be at the table to read it?), whether results are live or snapshot, and error behavior for an unknown tableId.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and the return contents, followed by the paging instruction. Nothing is wasted and nothing important trails.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (die, modifier, total, target, outcome) is doing real work and makes the tool callable without guesswork. The remaining gap is access/error semantics for a mutation-free read against a specific table.

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 schema already documents after as a roll id sequence cursor and limit as 1-500 with a default. The description only adds the paging intent, which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 ('Read the table's public roll log') and enumerates what a roll entry contains, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling overlaps this resource, so ambiguity is low.

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?

'Use after and limit to page through it' gives a clear usage pattern for the two optional parameters. It does not say when to call this at all (e.g., polling for new rolls after an action, refreshing a log view) or what to do on an empty result, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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