list_linked_institutions_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'reads', indicating a read-only operation with no side effects, and describes the data source (local SQLite items table). It does not mention side effects or costs, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for context. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The description provides enough context for usage: what it does, the data source, and the Plaid scope. The output schema is present (not shown but indicated), so details about return values are covered there. It could mention what constitutes an 'institution' but that is not critical.

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 input schema has no parameters (properties empty), so there is nothing to describe. The description accurately reflects that it lists all institutions without filters, making parameter explanations unnecessary.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'every institution currently linked', with account counts and errors. It also distinguishes itself by noting it is Plaid-only, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 a clear 'when to use' by stating it is Plaid-only and reads the local SQLite items table, implying it is appropriate for Plaid-linked institutions. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the scope is understood from the Plaid-versus-Teller context.

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