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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /api/v1/roles/{role_id}/permissions), which is mild extra context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page_size/next_token parameters. With annotations covering safety, this is adequately but not richly disclosed.

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 operation and followed by the endpoint mapping. The endpoint sentence is mild redundancy but not wasteful; nothing is padded.

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 and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is roughly sufficient for a simple read-only list operation. It does not explain the returned collection shape or how paging tokens behave, leaving minor gaps.

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% – role_id, page_size and next_token are all documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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 and resource with scope: 'List the permissions attached to one role.' The scoping phrase 'attached to one role' implicitly separates it from the sibling kinde_list_permissions, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to choose this over kinde_list_permissions (global permission list) or kinde_get_user_permissions_in_organization. The scope phrase hints at usage but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite information.

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