edubase_get_organization_permission

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true), idempotentHint (true), openWorldHint (true), and destructiveHint (false), strongly indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description confirms the read-only nature by stating 'Check if a user has permission' and does not contradict annotations. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, but the annotations are already very comprehensive.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose. It contains zero unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 params, simple enum, output schema present, no nested objects) and excellent annotations, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and its read-only nature. However, it does not explain the output behavior—though since an output schema exists, that is not required. It could briefly mention when this check succeeds/fails.

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 documentation coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions and enum values for `permission`. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), baseline is 3, and the description meets but does not exceed this baseline.

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 clearly states the tool checks if a user has a specific permission on an organization, using the verb 'Check' with the resource 'organization permission'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `edubase_post_organization_permission` and `edubase_delete_organization_permission`, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 implies use when needing to verify a user's permission level on an organization. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but among the many permission-related sibling tools, the 'get' prefix clearly indicates it's for checking, not modifying. Adding context on when to use alternatives like the post/delete permission tools would improve clarity.

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