Read a PostgreSQL application role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about error behavior for missing roles or clusters, or what a 'read' returns.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasteful. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving no front-loaded information an agent could act on.

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 read-only lookup with four covering annotations, two required parameters and no output schema, the description need not explain return values. Still, it does not name the required cluster/role inputs, which is the main remaining gap. Final: 3.

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 0% for role and cluster; only the namespace $ref carries a description. The phrase 'application role' hints that the 'role' parameter names a PostgreSQL application role rather than a database user, which is a mild aid, but the description says nothing about the required cluster scoping or the role-name format.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus postgres_roles_list or the other role getters, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing cluster or role. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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