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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: dataset size (8,500+), what each match carries (Plaid status and page URLs), and the result ordering (largest first).

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 tight clauses with the scope and ordering front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating what matches contain and how they are ordered. Only the limit/truncation behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a simple read-only search tool.

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 75% and the query parameter is already documented as 'Name, brand or "name city"', so the description's mention of name and city largely restates the schema. It says nothing about the kind or state filters, and the limit parameter is undocumented in both places; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb plus resource with an explicit scope: 'Search 8,500+ US banks, credit unions and brokerages by name'. It also names the return payload (Plaid status, page URLs) and the ordering (largest first), which makes it clearly distinguishable from the singular check_institution and get_institution siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search ... by name (and optionally city)' and by mentioning that it returns a list of matches, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_institution, get_institution or list_apps, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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