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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only RPC' largely restates structured data. It does add context beyond annotations by naming the control-plane endpoint (POST /rpc/auth_roles), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or auth failure modes, and no output schema exists to cover that gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result meaning, with the endpoint detail appended. 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?

With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The return structure (how roles map to prefixes) is only hinted at, which is the main residual gap.

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 100% and the single enum parameter (min_capability) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (roles/capabilities) scoped to the current credential, and even describes what the result conveys (catalog prefixes with read/write/admin). It is unmistakable against siblings like list_catalog or list_connectors, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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 implied — call it to discover what the current credential may do — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative or prerequisite. Nothing misleading, just thin.

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