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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only: scans the in-memory KB, never writes' and adds useful behavioral detail about traversing the security graph and returning roles at any grant level. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded: it opens with WHEN, includes trigger examples, explains the mechanism, and ends with the safety guarantee. Every sentence contributes to intent matching or invocation knowledge, with no filler.

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 read-only, in-memory lookup with fully documented parameters, the description provides the essential outcome (returned roles), scope (specific object types), and mechanism. It lacks an explicit return-format note, but since there is no output schema, a brief statement of the result shape would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents objectName, maxRoles, and minGrant with descriptions and examples. The description adds contextual value by clarifying that the tool returns roles with 'any level of access (Read / Update / Create / Delete / Correct)', but it does not substantially extend the parameter semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: given a specific object (form, table, menu item, or service operation), it returns all roles that can access it. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'security coverage for object' is precise, and the backward graph traversal (EntryPoint -> Privilege -> Duty -> Role) concretely distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_security_chain or generate_security_report.

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 provides WHEN guidance and explicit trigger phrases ('who can access', 'which roles see', 'find roles with access'), making the intended invocation clear. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion-based guidance.

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