Listar instituciones públicas de gob.ec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results carry IDs (enabling chaining to get_institucion_info), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema already 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema and every phrase earns its place.

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 a full output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the core action plus the ID output. It is nearly complete; only a note on pagination or the list-vs-detail boundary would fully close the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (page, query, format) are already documented in the schema, including the constraint that page is only used without query. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb pair (list/search) and resource (public institutions registered on gob.ec) plus a useful output note ('with their IDs'). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the obvious sibling get_institucion_info (the detail counterpart) or search_organizations.

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 'List or search' phrasing implies that passing a term searches and omitting it lists, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_institucion_info for a single institution, and no exclusions.

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