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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the disclosure that results include enablement state and live runtime health. It does not mention caching/refresh behavior or failure modes when the runtime is unhealthy, which would push it to a 5.

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 resource and payload, then the usage directive, then a reference link. The first sentence packs three ideas into one comma-heavy clause, but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does describe what comes back (roles, on/off state, runtime health, usable slugs). It stops short of describing the shape or how to detect an unhealthy runtime, but the essential picture is complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents client_id's purpose in full. The description says nothing about client_id or the default 'active organization' fallback beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('list micro-worker roles') and enumerates the payload: available roles, which are switched on, and runtime health. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_agents and list_client_team, which the description does not overlap with.

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 prescribes the precondition ('Call this before delegating specialist work') and the downstream action it enables ('set `role` on create_task to a slug that will actually be picked up'). The agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool and what it feeds into.

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