get_institution_list

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses listing behavior, fuzzy search, and output id. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, limitations on count, or error handling for invalid market names.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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 no output schema and 3 params, description covers listing purpose, optional search, and output usage. Lacks details on output structure (fields beyond institution_id) and behavior with large count. Almost complete but could be more explicit.

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 0%; description explains 'name' (fuzzy search) and 'market' (implicitly), but 'count' parameter (default 20) is not described. Example helps with name. Partially compensates but misses count semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it lists institutions in a market, with optional fuzzy name search, and returns institution_id usable in other tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover holdings, distribution, profile, etc.

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?

Provides usage context: optional name fuzzy search with example, and that returned institution_id is for other institution tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the intended use is clear.

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