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

Adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: explains that members, roles, teams, and SSO are not changeable via MCP by design, and that organization context is required. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter and limitations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and constraints (org context, read-only nature). With no output schema, it adequately explains what is returned (role and permission strings) and the optional catalog behavior.

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% for the single boolean parameter includeCatalog, but the description enriches it by explaining its purpose ('to map a denied action onto a name'), which goes beyond the schema's simple default note.

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 the caller's own role and effective permission strings) in the active organization, and distinguishes itself by noting 'custom roles resolved.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_custom_role, which targets a specific role rather than the caller's own.

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?

Explicitly identifies the trigger scenario ('the tool to reach for after a permission error') and the requirement for organization context. This gives a strong, actionable use case that differentiates it from other get_* tools, even though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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