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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavior (project_key falls back to global tenant_id) and states the return type (JSON string), but doesn't explicitly confirm read-only nature or mention any access requirements. For a get tool this is decent but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear parameter list, and a return type statement. No unnecessary prose, and the front-loaded summary is effective. The parameter breakdown is slightly mechanical but not wasteful.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers all parameters, defaults, and the project_key fallback behavior. With an output schema present, the vague 'Returns: JSON string with role permissions result' is acceptable. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter (7 total) with meaningful context, including defaults, filtering behavior, and the project_key fallback. Some descriptions are borderline tautological ('Search filter') but overall adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get permissions assigned to specific role(s)' with a specific verb+resource, and the 'specific role(s)' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling list_permissions (which likely queries all permissions). It clearly differentiates from set_role_permissions (write counterpart).

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?

The description implies usage for querying permissions by role_slugs, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_permissions or set_role_permissions. No named alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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