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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured fields. The description adds only the shape of the payload (criteria and screening); it says nothing about behavior on a missing/unauthorized role or about permissions, so it barely clears the lowered bar.

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, the purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow caveat follows without filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema while annotations cover safety. The only remaining gap is what happens on an invalid or inaccessible roleId, which is minor for a read-only two-param lookup.

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%: roleId documents the UUID format and its source, and workspaceId documents the 'personal' sentinel. The description only restates 'by its id', adding no semantics beyond the schema, which is baseline 3.

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 ('Get one role by its id') plus the substantive payload it returns ('its defined criteria and its screening'), which separates it from the sibling list_roles. Not quite a 5 because it never names the sibling tool explicitly, only referring to 'the role list tool'.

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 second sentence gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: resolve the role name via the role list tool before calling this one. There is no explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., use list_roles for a summary view), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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