search_institutions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'search'. It does not mention pagination, sorting, result limits, or any other behavioral traits, offering little beyond the raw action.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the main purpose. However, it is extremely brief, bordering on under-specification, though it remains appropriately concise for a simple search intent.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, a single generic sentence is insufficient. It lacks context about expected return values, pagination behavior, or how the search scope relates to the available filters.

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 only 57%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It does not clarify the query format, filter semantics, or meaning of page/limit/order beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific search action ('ara' = search) targeting universities and research institutions in TR Dizin. It is clear about the resource and domain, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling search tools beyond the entity type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. search_publications, search_journals, or search_authors. It lacks workflow context, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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