identity_get_org_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value with the deprecation status and the per-role access policy table (Platform operator, Org Owner, Service Account allowed; Org Member denied). It omits pagination and response shape, but the access matrix and deprecation are meaningful additions beyond the annotations.

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 replacement path are correctly front-loaded, but the body is dominated by a bulky HTML-escaped markdown access table and a duplicated raw endpoint string that together take more space than the actual functional guidance. It is not padded for its own sake, but the formatting overhead is heavy relative to the information delivered.

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 deprecated three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization and replacement adequately but never names the sibling tool that supersedes it, leaving the agent without an actionable redirect. No return-value or pagination context is needed, so the remaining gap is the tool-level replacement mapping.

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 the schema already documents name, orgId, and expand, including the unusual note that expand's value is ignored. The description adds nothing about any parameter, so the 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 Organization Roles") and flags the tool as deprecated up front, which immediately distinguishes its standing among siblings. It does not name a sibling tool as the replacement, only a REST path, so an agent still has to infer which tool in the list corresponds to /cloudapi/1.0.0/roles.

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 says to use a different API instead, which is genuine when-not-to-use guidance, but the alternative is expressed as a raw REST endpoint rather than a sibling tool name the agent can actually invoke. The access-policy table gives the authorization precondition but there is no guidance on when this tool remains appropriate versus identity_get_group_roles_on_organization or provider_query_tenant_roles.

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