check_usage_permitted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the check action but does not mention return format (e.g., boolean), error handling for invalid block JSON, or whether the operation has side effects. The word 'check' implies read-only, but this is not made explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It delivers the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

The tool has two required parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return value and any prerequisites. It only states the core function, leaving the agent to infer return semantics and error behavior, which is insufficient for effective tool use.

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 provides descriptions for 'block' and an enum for 'usage', but coverage is only 50%. The description adds little beyond restating that a usage type is checked; it does not explain how the block JSON should be structured or what the usage values mean. It fails to compensate for the partial schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('check') and resource ('usage type permitted under a governance block's terms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_purpose_permitted by focusing on usage type rather than purpose, and from other check_ tools by naming governance block terms.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool (to verify a usage type under a governance block), but it does not provide explicit guidance on alternative tools or exclusions. The description does not compare with siblings like check_combination_permitted or check_purpose_permitted, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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