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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It implies a stable enumeration of valid keys to feed into role creation, which is useful, but says nothing about the shape of returned keys, whether it's a static catalog, or any auth requirements.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the resource identified first and the companion-tool hint second. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

For a zero-argument read with no output schema, an agent needs to know what it returns and why; the description covers both ('capability keys' that feed custom role creation). Only the exact return format of the keys is left implicit, a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly doesn't invent any. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

The description names a specific resource ('capability keys') and its scope ('that can be given to custom gym roles'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling list_organization_custom_roles and get_organization_role_guide. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the noun phrase unambiguously identifies it as an enumeration of delegable capability keys.

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 parenthetical '(use with create/update_organization_custom_role)' explicitly names the workflow this tool feeds into, giving clear context for when to call it. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites (permissions needed), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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