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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (name, type, item count, canonical URL) and the domain scope, which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first states scope, the second states the return payload. Both are front-loaded and neither repeats the name or annotations.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what qualifies for inclusion and what fields come back. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% – both the type filter and its example values, plus the limit bounds and default, are already documented in the schema. The description enumerates the same institution types but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List museums, libraries, archives and other institutions") and scopes it to partners publishing on the Alexandria Archive. The plural form distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_institution without needing to name it. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from search_archive or the other list_* siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase (institutions that publish collections here), and the existence of get_institution makes the browse-vs-fetch split inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_archive, and no stated prerequisites.

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