edubase_get_integration_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description does not add any behavioral info beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of output format or potential edge cases). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a tool with many siblings, a slightly more informative opening could improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Though an output schema exists (presumably documenting return values), the description does not hint at what the output represents (e.g., boolean or permission details). Given the 3 required parameters and the existence of many similar permission tools, the description is minimally acceptable but leaves some context for the agent to infer.

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%—all three parameters (integration, user, permission) have descriptions in the schema, including the permission enum. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check if a user has permission on an integration' uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('integration'), clearly distinguishing this read-only permission check from sibling tools like edubase_post_integration_permission (set permission) and edubase_delete_integration_permission (remove permission), as well as from similar tools for other entities.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the post or delete permission variants, or why one might choose this over permission checks for other entity types. With dozens of sibling permission tools, explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions are missing.

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