identity_get_logged_in_user_groups_on_org

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: deprecation status and a per-role access policy table stating which principals are authorized.

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 and migration pointer are correctly front-loaded, but the markdown access-policy table is verbose and the trailing raw endpoint line duplicates the annotation title and tool name. Part of the text is spent restating structured data rather than adding information.

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 one-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema call whose annotations already cover idempotency and safety, the description covers purpose, authorization, and lifecycle status. The only real gap is that it never indicates what the returned groups look like, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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?

There is a single required parameter (orgId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description adds nothing about orgId formatting or scope beyond the endpoint path template, which is the baseline expectation under full coverage.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: return the principal user's groups within a given organization, and it leads with [DEPRECATED]. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly separate itself from near-siblings such as identity_get_organization_groups or approvals_get_logged_in_user_groups.

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 description explicitly says to migrate to /scim/v2/Users, which is a strong 'use something else' signal, and the access matrix clarifies who may call it. It falls short of 5 because the replacement is a raw HTTP path, not a sibling tool, so the agent still has to map it to an available MCP tool.

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