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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include specific fields (id, name, postcode, region) and that the tool only returns UKRI-funded institutions. This is useful but not extensive; it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear action verb and a brief usage tip. Every word is essential, and there is no repetition or filler.

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, so the description must cover return values; it does so by listing the returned fields. It also explains the prerequisite (institution must have received UKRI funding) and suggests the next tool. With only 3 well-documented parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to use 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'institution name' for the name parameter, but the schema already provides a clear example and description. No additional semantic value 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?

The description starts with 'Find UK universities, research institutes and companies...by institution name.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (organisations), and the narrow scope (UKRI-funded institutions) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtr_search_projects or gtr_organisation_projects.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use the returned id with gtr_organisation_projects to get funded projects, providing a clear follow-up action. While it doesn't list when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the context is clear enough for typical search scenarios.

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