configure_institutional_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the OpenURL mechanism, the effect of enabling/disabling, and the result (status message). It does not contradict any annotations. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with sections and headings, aiding readability. However, it is quite long with ASCII art and repeated formatting, which could be more concise. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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 four parameters (some optional) and the existence of an output schema (indicated by 'Returns: Configuration status message'), the description covers configuration options, preset lists, URL discovery, and the test parameter. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: resolver_url (with URL format examples), preset (with list of presets), enable (default true), and test (compatibility flag, recommending alternative). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool configures institutional OpenURL link resolver for full-text access. It uses specific verb 'configure' and resource 'institutional access', and distinguishes from siblings like test_institutional_access and get_institutional_link.

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 provides three explicit usage options (preset, custom URL, disable) with examples and available presets. It also directs users to test_institutional_access for explicit testing. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the alternatives are clear and sufficient.

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