List custom role credit limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics: null means no self-imposed limit, the limit applies per member individually, and with multiple roles the highest limit wins. It does not mention pagination behavior, though the cursor param covers that.

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 with the core action and scope, followed by meaningful edge-case semantics. The trailing 'Read operation.' is redundant given readOnlyHint=true, a small bit of waste in an otherwise tight description.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the key return-value nuance (null vs. an actual limit) and multi-role resolution. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has what it needs, though explicit sibling routing would round it out.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the admin requirement on user_id and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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: it lists every active custom role in an organization along with each role's monthly credit limit. The 'every ... role' scope implicitly separates it from the singular get_role_credit_limit and set_role_credit_limit siblings, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 stated motivation ('so external systems can manage credit limits programmatically') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against get_role_credit_limit or set_role_credit_limit. Usage is left to inference.

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