identity_get_user_org_roles

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: deprecation status and an access policy table showing which roles can call it. It does not describe return shape or rate limits, but for a deprecated read endpoint this is solid additional context.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning and replacement guidance, then the access table. The access matrix is somewhat verbose, but it is structured and informative rather than wasteful.

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 one-parameter, read-only, deprecated endpoint with annotations covering safety, the description supplies deprecation, alternatives, and access policy. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's main remaining need is the deprecation warning, which is present.

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 coverage is effectively complete for the single orgId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description shows orgId in the path but adds no semantic explanation beyond that, leaving the schema to carry parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: it gets the currently logged-in user's roles within an organization. It is reasonably distinguishable from broader org-role tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many similarly named identity_get_user_* role tools.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names replacement APIs (/oidc/userinfo and /cloudapi/1.0.0/roles), which is strong when-not-to-use guidance. It does not map those replacements to specific MCP sibling tools, but the deprecation signal is clear.

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