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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by naming the required permission scope and disclosing that payroll/private fields are omitted from results. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens when an xrefId does not resolve.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it reads, the permission gate, and the field-omission caveat. No filler and the most important identification detail comes first.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers identity, permission, and data-scope well. The only gap is that return shape is only hinted at via the 'payroll/private fields omitted' note rather than described.

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%, so the id parameter's format and pattern are already fully documented. The description reinforces the two accepted forms (numeric ID vs documented external reference) but adds no syntax detail beyond what the schema states, so 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 (read) and resource (operational role metadata) and constrains the lookup to an internal numeric ID or external reference. It implicitly separates itself from quinyx_list_roles by being a single-record fetch, but never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts 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?

The permission requirement ('Requires organization:roles:read') gives useful preconditions, and the scope note implies when this single-role read applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus quinyx_list_roles or quinyx_list_role_assignments, leaving the agent to infer from tool names.

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