check_permission_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tables queried and explicitly notes a key limitation (field-level RBP not exposed). However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only or discuss authentication, though auth parameters exist.

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?

Very concise: two sentences and a short note. The first sentence states the purpose directly. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks context on how optional parameters affect the query, and does not mention pagination or result limits. Adequate but with gaps.

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 only 20% (only 'role_name' described). The description adds no explanation for other parameters like 'entity', 'data_center', or auth fields. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 looks up permission role details by querying specific database tables. It distinguishes itself by noting the limitation that field-level permissions are not exposed, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_permission_roles' which might have a similar purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only implies a limitation (field-level not exposed) but does not name alternative tools for different needs. Given many sibling tools, this is insufficient.

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