identity_get_user_roles_in_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needed to add context — and it does, with a role-based access matrix and the deprecation warning. It stops short of describing the returned roles payload or pagination, which for a list-style read would have been useful.

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?

Front-loaded deprecation banner is the right priority, followed by alternative, constraint, and access table. It is slightly cluttered by raw HTML entities (✔️, ❌) that hurt readability, but there is little wasted prose.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description covers safety, permissions, deprecation, and routing. The main omission is any hint of the response shape, though the deprecation makes that low stakes.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema (albeit tersely as "(path)"). The description's URL template confirms userId and orgId are path segments and shows their positions, but adds no format, default, or valid-value guidance beyond that — baseline 3.

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 the user's roles") and the trailing endpoint path clarifies the scope is a user within an organization. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings such as identity_get_user_org_roles or identity_get_user_service_roles_in_organization, so an agent cannot diff them from the text alone.

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 leading [DEPRECATED] marker plus an explicit replacement ("Use this API instead: /scim/v2/Users/{{userUrn}}") tells the agent when NOT to call this tool, which is the strongest possible usage routing. The access policy table further enumerates which roles may invoke it and which are denied.

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