identity_get_group_roles_on_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable access policy details (platform operator and organization owner allowed, member and service account denied) and deprecation status, which go beyond the annotations. It does not explain return format, but read-only status is covered.

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 deprecation notice is front-loaded correctly, but the description includes a redundant title line and endpoint restatement that add little beyond the annotations. The access policy table is useful but makes the overall text somewhat cluttered for a simple two-parameter GET tool.

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 GET with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides deprecation guidance and access policy. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is sufficiently explained.

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 both orgId and groupId are already documented as GUIDs and unique identifiers. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves group roles within an organization and names the HTTP endpoint and deprecated status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling identity tools, but the purpose is clear from the verb+resource pairing.

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?

It opens with [DEPRECATED] and explicitly tells callers to use /cloudapi/1.0.0/groups/{{groupUrn}} instead, which is strong guidance for avoiding this tool. It does not name a specific MCP sibling replacement, but the deprecation and alternative endpoint are clear.

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