identity_get_user_service_roles_in_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by flagging deprecation, specifying the replacement endpoint, and documenting an access-policy matrix.

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 warning and replacement API are front-loaded, which is the most important information. The access-policy table is somewhat bulky for a deprecated endpoint but still relevant and readable.

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?

The description covers deprecation, replacement, auth roles, and the one-organization constraint, which is useful for a read-only GET. With no output schema, however, it does not describe the returned service-role data or clarify serviceDefinitionLink, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already labels userId and orgId as path parameters, and the description's endpoint template restates that. However, the third parameter, serviceDefinitionLink, is left unexplained, and the description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's service roles.' It also marks the tool deprecated and gives a replacement endpoint, but it does not distinguish it from closely named sibling identity tools such as identity_get_user_org_service_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?

It explicitly says '[DEPRECATED]' and gives a replacement API path, so an agent is clearly told when not to use this tool. It does not map the replacement to an available sibling MCP tool name, which leaves some inference required.

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