test_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 discloses that only reachability is tested, not actual access. It explains what the test checks and the limitations. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which would be desirable for complete transparency.

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 overly verbose with decorative ASCII art and extensive test instructions that could be condensed. While it is well-structured and front-loaded, it contains redundant details that could be trimmed without losing value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no required fields, with output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers tool purpose, test scope, limitations, usage examples, and return values. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for behavioral context, and the description provides it adequately.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the 'pmid' parameter with its default value and purpose. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, adding clear meaning beyond the 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 it tests the institutional link resolver configuration, checking configuration, reachability, and response validity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_institutional_access' and 'diagnose_institutional_access' by focusing on testing.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to test link resolver configuration) and provides alternatives like using the 'test_free' preset. It also explains what the test does not guarantee (full-text access), setting appropriate expectations.

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