get_institution_context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 'context' view returns a 'capped top authors' list with 'the duplicated institution block dropped server-side,' while 'full' includes 'a bounded author list with explicit truncation metadata.' This goes beyond just stating the operation and clarifies response shape differences.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. Bullet points efficiently explain the two views, and the final sentence directs to a sibling tool. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete: it explains the two response shapes, provides an alternative for full author listing, and gives a default recommendation. The only gap is the lack of detail on the institution identifier parameter, but overall the tool is well-specified for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'view' parameter is thoroughly explained with enum meanings and recommendations, but the required 'institution_key_or_url' parameter lacks any detail (e.g., format or example) beyond its self-descriptive name. The description mentions 'a Lacuna institution' but does not explicitly define what a key or URL looks like.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Fetch agent-oriented context for a Lacuna institution,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_author_context and get_venue_context. It further differentiates this tool from get_institution_authors by noting that the latter is for paging through the complete author list.

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 recommends the default 'context' view and explains when to use it vs. the 'full' view. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'Use get_institution_authors to page through the complete author list,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool.

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