Search Institutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and the search key, but does not explain matching semantics, result structure, case sensitivity, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only beyond what 'search' implies.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent receives no indication of the result shape or how returned institution identifiers might feed into connect_bank workflows, which is a noticeable but minor gap.

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 already fully documents the only parameter ('query' with description 'Bank or institution name'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description restates name-based searching but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific action ('Search') and resource ('banks and financial institutions'), and adds the criterion 'by name,' which gives concrete scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on connections, accounts, and transactions, even though no alternative search tool is named.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings like connect_bank or list_connections, and it does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is that searching likely happens before connecting, but this is not stated.

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