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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the useful scoping detail that only built-in roles are covered, but says nothing about whether the result is static or org-dependent, nor why an organizationId is required for what sounds like global reference data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is a fragment that omits any verb framing what the caller receives.

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 and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries real burden. It conveys the conceptual content (role permissions) but leaves the required parameter and the nature of the returned guide unexplained, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% and the single required parameter organizationId is never mentioned in the description. This is especially problematic because the tool describes static built-in role definitions, so an agent has no clue what the org ID scopes or whether it is simply an auth/context argument.

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 names a concrete resource (built-in gym roles) and enumerates the exact roles covered (OWNER, ADMIN, PRIMARY_COACH, COACH). The verb is implicit — it reads as a reference lookup rather than stating 'returns the permission guide' — but an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_organization_access or get_organization_hierarchy.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. list_organization_custom_roles for non-built-in roles), and no prerequisites. The only hint is that this covers built-in roles, which implies custom roles live elsewhere, but that is left to inference.

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