watch_institution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the incremental behavior (only NEW flags, local state) and the `since` floor. It does not address output format or rate limits, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, example, behavioral note, and parameter guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core scanning purpose, incremental behavior, and parameter hints. It lacks alternative-tool guidance but is otherwise complete.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining `since` as a YYYY-MM-DD publication-date floor and providing a concrete example for `ror`. Both parameters receive meaningful context beyond schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool scans an institution's works by ROR ID and flags papers or papers citing flagged papers, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_references, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'Repeat calls report only NEW flags' implies a monitoring use case, and the `since` parameter guidance is included. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_references.

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