List Company Roles

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds error behavior (401/403/404) and a company_id default, but the default contradicts the schema's required field, and the 'single JSON object' return type conflicts with the list nature. This adds some context but also misinformation.

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?

The description is somewhat long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Sentences are informative, covering usage, return type, safety, errors, and API location, though it could be tightened and avoid internal contradictions.

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 provides only a vague return type ('single JSON object') and doesn't explain the role fields or pagination behavior. It covers error handling and API endpoint, but for a 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, it leaves gaps about expected response structure.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description's claim that company_id defaults when omitted directly contradicts the schema's required constraint, reducing clarity. It fails to meaningfully enrich parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Return a list of roles for a company' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_roles by indicating company scope. However, the phrase 'Returns a single JSON object describing the company role' conflicts with the list semantics and slightly muddies the purpose.

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?

Provides a usage hint ('Use this when you already know which company role you want and need its full field set') and notes the company_id default, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The usage hint is also somewhat inconsistent with a list operation.

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