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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds two things they cannot: that Admin and Member are immutable system roles (useful when deciding whether update_role/delete_role will succeed) and that CRM field values are untrusted content to be treated as data. It stops short of describing pagination or result limits.

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 plus a security note, with the purpose front-loaded before the system-role caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, describing what the listing returns (actions, object rules, parent role, member count) is genuinely valuable and partially compensates. The annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the sole workspaceId parameter is fully documented inline, including the multi-workspace requirement. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Lists the workspace's roles') and enumerates exactly what each role carries (actions, object rules, parent role, member count), which distinguishes it from get_role's single-role fetch by implicitness of plurality. It never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer list-vs-get.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of get_role as the alternative for fetching one role. The system-role note hints at downstream constraints (rename/delete are impossible on Admin/Member) but is not framed as usage direction.

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