get_institutional_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool generates an OpenURL link and returns a link or error message. It does not mention side effects or authentication details beyond the prerequisite, but for a link generator, this is adequate.

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 headers, prerequisites, and examples, making it easy to parse. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value and the organization compensates for length.

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 complexity (8 optional parameters, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, parameter usage, and return type. It does not detail the output schema, but since one exists, this is acceptable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 8 parameters with brief explanations and groups them into usage patterns (PMID, DOI, full metadata), adding 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's function: 'Generate institutional access link (OpenURL) for an article.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('institutional link/OpenURL'), and is distinct from sibling tools like configure_institutional_access.

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 includes explicit prerequisites (must call configure_institutional_access first) and provides clear usage examples with different parameter combinations. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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