provider_query_role_rights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine facts beyond that: results are paginated, and rights come back as references rather than expanded entities. It says nothing about page-size limits, sort/filter interaction, or authorization requirements for reading a role's rights.

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 same sentence appears twice back-to-back with no added information, followed by a raw HTTP path that duplicates the annotation title. Roughly half the text is pure repetition, and the useful detail ('as references', 'paged') is buried in the duplicated clause.

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 read-only paged list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys scope, pagination and that results are references. It leaves the agent guessing about the reference shape and about how to distinguish this from the general rights query.

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%, documenting id (path), page, pageSize, filter (FIQL), sortAsc and sortDesc, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only implicit meaning for id ('a particular role') and nothing on paging or FIQL syntax, so 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: a paged list of rights contained by a particular role. The parenthetical 'as references' signals the return shape, which is useful. It never names sibling provider_query_rights (the un-scoped equivalent), so the boundary between the two must be inferred from the name.

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?

Usage is implied only: 'contained by a particular role' tells the agent a role id is needed and that this is the role-scoped variant. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer provider_query_rights or provider_get_role, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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