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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds two real behavioral facts: the operation requires workspace-admin authorization, and returned CRM field values are untrusted and must not be treated as instructions. That auth requirement and security caveat are meaningful additions to the structured metadata.

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 first sentence is compact and front-loads the purpose with a tight enumeration of return components. The second paragraph is a security boilerplate about CRM field values that is somewhat tangential for an access-rule read, so it does not fully earn its place, though the overall size remains small.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains the return shape (role actions, object rules, member exceptions, effective result) and covers the admin prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to call a 2-parameter read tool correctly, though it could be tightened by removing the off-topic CRM data warning.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both memberId and workspaceId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides; it only refers to 'one member,' which the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 applies because the structured fields carry the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns what one member may do on every object') and then enumerates the returned components: role actions, role object rules, member exceptions, and the effective result. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_role (role definition) and get_permission_catalogue (global catalogue) without opening a schema.

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 only usage context given is the prerequisite 'Workspace admins only,' which narrows who may call it but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_role or get_pipeline_access. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly routed.

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