Search institutions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context: sandbox returns test banks while production searches the full network. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate-limit behavior, which would further help an agent understand what happens when calling this endpoint.

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 short sentences deliver the endpoint, environment difference, and practical use case with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

This is a relatively simple search tool with three schema-documented parameters and no nested objects. The description covers the sandbox/production distinction and the key use cases, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it; the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the stated purpose of finding institution_id and OAuth status.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema covers query with an example and products with an enum and a one-line explanation. country_codes lacks a real description beyond its default, and schema description coverage is only moderate at 67%, so the description does not compensate but is not badly deficient.

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 states the exact API endpoint, /institutions/search, and identifies the tool's output purpose: finding institution_id and OAuth status. It is clearly distinct from siblings like plaid_items_list or plaid_transactions_sync, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to differentiate from.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: discovering institution IDs and OAuth status, and it notes sandbox behavior vs production behavior. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the use case is stated directly rather than left to inference.

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