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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: the exact return shape, the camelCase naming difference from the REST API, and the pagination loop (send nextCursor back as cursor until null). This is valuable operational detail an agent needs.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines the output, second gives use cases, third states return shape and naming caveat, fourth explains pagination. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the output shape, pagination mechanics, termination condition, and the intended callers. Nothing an agent needs to successfully invoke the tool 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including that cursor is an opaque value taken from a previous call's nextCursor and that limit is clamped. The description's pagination note ('sending nextCursor back as cursor') reinforces but does not add information beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the organization's roles'), and enumerates the exact fields returned: id, name, description, and permission strings. It also references sibling tools (member.set_roles, role.update), making the tool's distinct purpose clear without needing to open schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'This is the lookup you need before member.set_roles, and the way to see what a role currently means before role.update.' This provides clear context but stops short of naming exclusion cases or contrasting with the sibling role__get tool.

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