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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default roles are merely a suggestion the developer can rename/re-scope, names should not be trusted, and rule matching is whole-key (REPORTS_VIEW does not match REPORTS_VIEW_ALL). It also warns against hard-coded role checks. This is meaningful disclosure; it stops short of full richness (e.g. pagination/ordering) but is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then usage, then caveats. It is fairly long and dense, but nearly every sentence carries distinct value (return fields, usage triggers, rule-matching gotcha). Could be trimmed slightly without losing content.

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 fully carries the burden of describing return values, enumerating each role field and explaining the top-level privileges map. It also covers the absence of assumptions and the access-control model, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single 'app' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('List every access role in the Bridge app with its privileges') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_role-adjacent alternatives such as get_auth_config and get_app. An agent can tell it apart from list_privileges or get_role 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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it (before writing a flag rule targeting a privilege/role, when choosing which role to assign a user, when verifying a privilege key exists) and names alternative tools for adjacent needs (get_auth_config, get_app). Both the trigger conditions and the exclusions are stated.

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