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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint, reinforcing read-only semantics, but says nothing about pagination, response shape, or whether only direct (non-inherited) roles are returned — a meaningful ambiguity for a roles lookup. Modest value beyond annotations.

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?

One tight sentence plus the endpoint reference. The scope constraint and purpose are front-loaded with zero 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 simple two-param read with no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that it never hints at the returned structure (array of roles, direct vs inherited), which an agent might want, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% for both parameters (user_id, org_code), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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/sense of 'get') and resource (roles), with precise scope: one user in one organization. This cleanly separates it from kinde_list_roles (global) and kinde_get_user_permissions_in_organization (permissions, not roles) without needing to open any schema.

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 phrase 'the direct answer to what can this person do here?' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use kinde_get_user_permissions_in_organization for permission-level grants). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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