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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description is not carrying the full safety burden. It does add useful content-scope disclosure beyond the annotation: the result aggregates not just role definitions but also who holds each role and which capabilities are delegable, implying a broader aggregate read. It says nothing about permissions required, pagination, or result size.

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 that leads with the resource and then the payload contents; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a read tool, though leading with 'List' would have made the action clearer.

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 does useful work by sketching the returned shape (role name, capabilities, member count, holders, delegatable capabilities), which is the main thing an agent needs here. However, it omits the identity/permission context for organizationId and any note on pagination or ordering, so it is only partially complete for a read that returns aggregate org data.

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% and the description never mentions organizationId or what it scopes. With a single undocumented required parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to infer that the org must be supplied to scope the listing.

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 the resource precisely ('Custom roles defined for a gym') and enumerates what the listing contains (name, capabilities, member count, holders, delegatable capabilities), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It never states an explicit verb like 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from sibling reads (get_organization_role_guide) or from the create/update/delete custom-role tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The mention of holder information and delegatable capabilities hints at overlap with get_organization_role_guide, but the description never tells the agent which to pick or under what conditions.

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