check_purpose_permitted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool supports wildcards and hierarchical matching, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose the return format, edge-case behavior, or confirm that it is read-only, which limits transparency for a simple check tool without an output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word adds value. It states the core function and then a key capability without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality and the wildcard feature. However, it omits information about what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or result object) and any potential error conditions. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a noticeable gap, so a score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds critical semantic detail by noting that purposes support wildcards (e.g., research:*). This goes beyond the schema's example values and clarifies how the `purpose` parameter can be formatted, enhancing the agent's ability to construct valid inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check if a purpose is permitted under source terms.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and the second sentence about wildcards and hierarchical matching adds a distinguishing feature that differentiates it from sibling check tools like check_usage_permitted or check_combination_permitted.

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 usage context through the wildcard and hierarchical matching features, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar check tools or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that exact matching might be handled elsewhere. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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