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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds useful content-level context: results carry coordinates, Wikidata URIs, authority ids, and citable amira_url links, which matters 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the resource and scope before the optional parameter and return-shape details. Domain vocabulary is dense but every sentence carries 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 usefully enumerates what results contain, and the read-only annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of routing guidance to sibling list tools is a gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the accepted values and clarifies the parameter is keyed to the Omeka partner-category authority and also accepts a free category label, but adds no syntax or default beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (Africa Multiple partner institutions) and enumerates the four partner categories it covers. The scope is narrow and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_institutions.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool (e.g. list_institutions for the broader institution set) is named. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of categories.

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