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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the Agency-key auth requirement and the shape/semantics of the returned data (permission levels none/view/edit per area), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentence plus a REST path reference, with the access precondition front-loaded. Every element earns its place and 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the auth precondition and a summary of the return structure (per-area permission levels), which is close to sufficient. It does not name the sibling list tool as an alternative, leaving a small routing 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%, so role_id is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the identifier via the REST path 'GET /roles/{role_id}' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already 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 and resource ('get one role') and the exact payload ('its permission levels (none/view/edit) per area'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling whatconverts_list_roles. The 'one role' framing makes the singular-vs-list distinction explicit without needing to open either 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?

'Agency key only' gives a clear precondition for when this tool is invocable, which is real usage guidance beyond the annotations. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. list_roles) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not rule.

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