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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload contents (per-app status, reason, search name, FAQs, identifiers), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination or size limits for an institution with many apps.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with content, with the result payload front-loaded before the input requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so concretely for a single-parameter read tool. The only omission is any indication of result size or truncation behavior for institutions with many apps.

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 coverage is 100% and the single URL parameter already has two concrete examples, so the schema baseline applies. The description adds provenance the schema lacks: the URL should come from search_institutions, which tells the agent how to construct a valid value rather than guessing a path.

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?

Names the specific resource ('one institution') and enumerates what comes back: per-app status and reason, the name to search for, FAQs, and identifiers. That distinguishes it from list_apps and check_institution, though the retrieval verb is only implied by 'Full app-by-app results' rather than stated outright.

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?

'Takes a URL or path from search_institutions' explicitly chains this tool after its sibling, so an agent knows how to obtain the required input. There is no statement of when-not to use it or when check_institution would suffice instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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