scival_institution_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, data scope, rate limits, or return behavior. For a tool that presumably queries institution-level metrics, there is zero transparency about what the agent should expect.

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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, the single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information. It reads like a placeholder, not a purposeful summary.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any detail about the return value, parameter semantics, or use cases, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without external documentation.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (institution_id, year_from, year_to). It adds no meaning beyond what the bare schema already shows, failing to explain required vs. optional parameters or their format.

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 'SciVal institution metrics' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not specify an action (e.g., 'Retrieve', 'List', 'Calculate') or what kind of metrics are provided. It vaguely indicates the domain but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like scival_author_metrics or scival_topic_metrics, which likely have similar minimal descriptions.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios that would select this tool over the many sibling tools. An agent has no basis to decide whether to invoke it.

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