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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context, and it does add that the result is scoped to a single user/organization pair. However it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or what happens if the user is not in the organization.

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, both earning their place: the first carries the meaning and scope, the second gives the underlying endpoint for developers. The endpoint reference is marginally redundant but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally sketch what a role entry looks like (id, key, name) and whether the list is ever empty. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the inputs, so the definition is usable but leaves the return contract undefined.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The REST path template restates how org_code and user_id slot into the resource hierarchy, which is mildly reinforcing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 held by one user in one organization), and the plain-language gloss 'what can this person do here?' pins down the scope precisely. It does not explicitly name the near sibling kinde_get_user_permissions_in_organization, so the roles-vs-permissions boundary is left to inference from the tool name.

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 gloss clarifies the intent of the call, which implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling that returns permissions instead. A user asking 'what can this person do here?' may need both tools and the description does not say so.

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