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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool shows all entries with roll ranges, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any output limits, performance implications, or whether the full table is returned in a single response. This lack of additional context leaves behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with 'View the complete contents'.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well by specifying the exact output (all entries with roll ranges). However, it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats, which keeps it from being fully 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (game and table). The description adds context about the content (all entries with roll ranges) but does not elaborate on parameter-specific meaning or valid values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'View the complete contents of an oracle table — all entries with roll ranges'. The verb 'View' and resource 'oracle table' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_roll (which rolls on a table) and oracle_list_tables (which lists available tables).

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 the tool is for viewing table contents, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like oracle_roll or oracle_list_tables exist, and the description does not contrast with them, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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