get_university_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses very little: no return format, no error behavior for invalid/missing IDs, and no explicit read-only signal. The phrase 'optional U.S. federal data' is ambiguous, since the sole input parameter cannot toggle anything — it is unclear what makes the federal data optional.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded, with the one-sentence purpose first followed by a docstring-style arg note. Nothing is wasted, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant with the schema listing.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), so return values need not be spelled out. However, the missing when-to-use guidance and the ambiguous 'optional U.S. federal data' clause leave an agent without a fully reliable calling context, especially given the large sibling set.

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 0%, forcing the description to compensate. It does so well by explaining that institution_id is an OpenAlex institution ID and providing a concrete example format ('I136199984'). This adds meaning the schema lacks; only the absence of accepted-format variants or range details prevents a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institution profile with research metrics and optional U.S. federal data'). The resource description is detailed enough that the tool reads as a direct by-ID lookup, distinct from the search/compare siblings even without an explicit differentiation line.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this is for a known OpenAlex ID while search_universities is for name-based discovery, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites. An agent has no signal for choosing this over the search/compare siblings.

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