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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that only deposited sats are wagered (bonus sats excluded), that agent rolls earn no promos/rebates/races/jackpots, that account-owner limits apply, and that idempotency_key reuse returns the original roll rather than creating a second one. It also states the reply contents (server seed hash, client seed, nonce, win chance, multiplier) needed for verification.

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 critical constraints are front-loaded (real sats, link_account first, required idempotency key) and every sentence carries substantive information. It is a dense single paragraph, however, mixing mechanics, exclusions, and auth requirements, which makes it slightly harder to scan than a lightly structured version would be.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what the reply contains (win chance, multiplier, seed hash, client seed, nonce), lists the rate/limit regime, and covers auth and idempotency. For a 4-required-param mutation tool with no annotations, 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents target, wager_sats, and idempotency_key. The description adds real meaning beyond it: the target uses hundredths of the 0.00-99.99 roll scale with over/under selection, wager_sats draws from the linked account's deposited balance, and idempotency_key must be reused on retries to receive the original roll back.

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+resource ('Roll provably fair dice') and immediately scopes it to the operator's REAL deposited sats, distinguishing it from bonus-sat and promo-based siblings like place_bet or arena_play. The target scale, over/under direction, and wager grid are all named so the agent knows exactly which operation this is.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites: call link_account first (operator key required) and use get_agent_limits to read per-bet and per-day limits before rolling. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling betting tools such as place_bet or arena_play, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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