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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds domain context (types of roles) but no additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or error handling. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence with an inline example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has no output schema. The description explains what roles are returned but not the exact response structure (e.g., list of strings, objects with names) or behavior on invalid org numbers. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete but is sufficient for a basic read operation.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'orgnr' with description and example. The tool description reinforces this with an example and the '9-digit org number' context, but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns roles for an entity (board members, CEO, chair, auditor, etc.) identified by a 9-digit org number. The verb 'get' is in the title, and the resource 'roles' is specific. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_entity or get_accounts, but the focus on roles is distinctive enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it should be preferred, nor does it reference sibling tools like entity_profile or get_entity for related but different information. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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