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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: a 50-item cap with total reported, conditional coordinates, and the { error } behavior for names outside the authority list. It stops short of auth or rate-limit context, but the truncation and failure semantics are genuinely informative.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its key, then a compact enumeration of what is returned, then the failure case. Two sentences, no filler, every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: projects, research items (with the cap and total), people, coordinates, and a citable URL. Combined with the documented error case, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage gives a baseline of 4. The description technically adds the case-insensitive matching rule and the authority-list constraint, which the schema's bare 'Institution name' does not convey, so it slightly exceeds the baseline rather than merely repeating it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Detail for one institution (or group) by `name`'. The singular 'one institution' contrasts naturally with the plural listing sibling (list_institutions), so the agent can tell lookup from enumeration. It also names the input key and its case-insensitivity.

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 (call it when you have an institution name and want detail), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or stated alternative such as list_institutions. The note that the name must appear in the organisation authority list is a useful implicit prerequisite, but it is framed as a return condition rather than guidance.

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