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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the non-mutating nature, and the description reinforces that it is a check. However, it does not disclose whether it returns a simple boolean, how policy decisions are made, or what happens on invalid permissions.

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 description is one short sentence with no redundant wording, front-loading the action and object. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter read-only check the description is adequate, but it omits the return type (expected boolean) and does not clarify how this relates to rbac_get_my_access. The lack of an output schema makes this omission more noticeable.

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% and the parameter description includes useful examples, so the baseline applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own explanation of the permission string.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('check') with a clear object ('specific permission') and subject ('current user'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling rbac_get_my_access by focusing on a single permission check.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, especially rbac_get_my_access, nor does it describe expected use cases or return behavior. The only clue is the name and generic wording.

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