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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error cases, or authentication requirements, though the annotation lowers the bar for safety disclosure.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and the resource, making it easy for an agent to understand quickly.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides the essential output information: role, permissions, and scope. It could be slightly more complete by describing the output format or potential errors, but the low complexity makes this adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema requiring explanation. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: the current user's role, permissions, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rbac_check_permission, which likely checks a specific permission rather than returning all access information.

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 implies use when the caller needs their own role, permissions, or scope, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rbac_check_permission or apikey_get_scope. Usage guidance is only implicit, not direct.

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