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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses authentication behavior (invalid auth fails without tenant fallback), authority rechecks, missingScopes and access.nextAction reporting, and that filtered emptiness does not prove absence. It also clarifies that full detail never expands callability, which is important behavioral context for an access-diagnosis tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized around view modes, but it is very dense and packed with compressed clauses and legacy caveats. It is appropriately sized for a complex multi-mode tool, yet several sentences are hard to parse and could be tightened.

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?

Given the complexity of three view modes, six parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers defaults, filter interactions, authentication behavior, access-check semantics, role pagination, and legacy compatibility. An agent has enough context to invoke the correct mode and interpret caveats without needing the output schema for return values.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining that names and domain intersect, that names=[] retains context/profile with no capabilities, and that profile.id is an opaque workspace-bound ID. Much of the view and filter behavior is already in the schema, but the intersection and empty-array semantics go beyond it.

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 and distinguishes three view modes (identity, discovery, roles) by what each returns. It also explicitly contrasts legacy get_profile retention and get_policy's policy domain, so an agent can tell what this tool is for before opening the 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?

It gives a clear usage context ('before an unfamiliar action or access diagnosis') and specifies mode selection constraints, including which filters each view accepts and default behavior. It does not explicitly compare against all sibling alternatives such as list_capabilities, but the main usage branches are covered.

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