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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of 404/empty behavior, what a role payload contains, or whether the id is a UUID or slug.

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?

Very short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting half the text. The operation ID is internal plumbing that rarely helps an agent decide anything, while genuinely useful content is absent.

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?

Even for a simple by-id read with full annotations, the definition leaves two documented-nowhere parameters and the nature of the 'roles' resource unaddressed. The fallback pointer to describe_operation is the only mitigation, and it pushes required work onto another call.

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 0% across 2 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to do so. The bare ':id' path token implies params.id is a role identifier, but the untyped 'query' object is never explained, leaving an agent guessing what can be passed there.

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 body of the description is literally the title repeated twice ("GET /api/roles/:id. GET /api/roles/:id."), so it restates rather than expands the name. An agent can infer 'fetch a role by id' from the path, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_roles_eb3c8bbe4bc9aed660477bd6 or explains what a role record 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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is named. The only guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is a helper hint rather than a condition for selecting this tool over the list endpoint or execute_read.

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