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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the content scope (role, permissions, scope) and says nothing about return shape, whether the result is cached, or how it behaves when the caller has no role assigned.

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 with no filler. Every word carries information about the resource and the returned fields.

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 no-param read-only tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn the return structure, and it only names three concepts without shape or nesting. It also leaves the choice between this and rbac_check_permission to inference.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs compensating for. The description correctly implies no input is required and that the subject is always the caller.

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?

Specific verb ('get') plus resource ('current user's role, permissions, and scope'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling rbac_check_permission or build_whoami, which likely cover overlapping visibility-into-identity ground.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current user' plus zero parameters signals a self-inspection call used when an agent needs to discover its own identity/scope. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of rbac_check_permission, and no statement of prerequisites.

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