provider_query_tenant_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about which organization scope is used, how results are paged, or whether all roles or only tenant-scoped roles are returned. It also doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short lines with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. The raw HTTP endpoint is marginal value for an agent, but it does not bloat the text.

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?

With 5 parameters, pagination and no output schema, the description should say what a role object contains at a high level and how results are paged. It says nothing about return values or pagination behavior, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a list endpoint whose output shape is undocumented.

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%, so page, pageSize, filter (FIQL), sortAsc and sortDesc are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning — notably it doesn't explain FIQL syntax or the interaction between page/pageSize and the required-ness of those fields. 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 ('Get list of roles for an organization'), which is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like provider_create_role-style tools. However, it does not differentiate from the very similar identity_get_org_roles or provider_query_role_rights siblings, so the agent cannot tell which role-listing endpoint to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other role/right listing tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only context is the raw endpoint path 'GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/roles', which is a routing hint rather than usage guidance.

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