identity_get_user_org_service_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive; the description adds value beyond them with the deprecation status, the concrete endpoint, and an access-policy matrix naming which roles (Platform operator, Org Owner/Member, whitelisted service account) can call it. Return shape and org-scoping behavior are still unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Deprecation and the replacement API are front-loaded, which is the right ordering. The markdown access-policy table and raw URL tail add bulk that could have been one sentence, but they carry real permission information rather than filler.

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, annotation-covered read endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, that it is deprecated, the substitute, and who may call it. The main remaining gap is parameter behavior, particularly the optional serviceDefinitionLink filter.

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 only 50%: orgId carries a bare '(path)' note and serviceDefinitionLink has no description at all. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, and the optional serviceDefinitionLink — whose filtering semantics an agent would need — is entirely undocumented in both places.

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: it gets the currently logged-in user's service roles, and the HTTP path shows the lookup is scoped to an org. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as identity_get_user_org_roles or identity_get_user_service_roles_in_organization, so an agent must infer that 'service roles' is a distinct concept.

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 deprecation banner plus a named replacement (/oidc/userinfo) is an explicit 'do not use, use that instead' instruction, which is stronger guidance than most tools provide. It stops short of explaining when this endpoint would still be the correct choice versus the many identity siblings.

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