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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the fields each result carries (name, project_count, coordinates when reconciled, citable amira_url) and pagination limits, though it does not state total-count or ordering behavior.

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-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then result shape, then sibling routing. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. With annotations covering safety and both alternatives named, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is only 33%, so compensation is needed. The description supplies the missing semantics: keyword filters by name (schema says only 'string'), and offset is described as paginating alongside limit. Limit's default/max merely restates the schema description.

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 and resource ('List institutions in the authority list'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: get_institution (details) and list_groups (research groups are a separate list). An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Routes explicitly: 'Use get_institution for the affiliated projects and contributed items' and 'Research groups are a separate list — see list_groups.' Both the when-to-use alternative and the boundary with a similar list are named.

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